Oral
Answers to
Questions

Wales

The Secretary of State was asked—

Community Renewal Fund

James Davies: What assessment the Government have made of the potential outcomes of the £46 million community renewal fund allocated to Wales.

Simon Hart: Wales is receiving £46 million under the UK community renewal fund, 23% of the funding total, and 165 projects are being funded across Wales, including 14 in Denbighshire worth almost £3 million.

James Davies: Two weeks ago, as my right hon. Friend says, £2.9 million was announced from the community renewal fund for 14 projects in Denbighshire, including Blossom & Bloom, a charity in Rhyl that can now support 20 more mothers and babies. Of course, the community renewal fund is there to help communities prepare for the introduction of the shared prosperity fund. Will he outline what discussions he is having about that fund and whether capital, as well as revenue, will be available?

Simon Hart: My hon. Friend raises a very good question, and I hope he will take into account that we are looking at the levelling-up fund, the community renewal fund and the community ownership fund, as well as the shared prosperity fund, in the round, and other potential funding proposals, too. When he sees the detail, I hope he will see that we address both capital and revenue.

Levelling-up Fund and Shared Prosperity Fund

Owen Thompson: What comparative assessment he has made of the equity of allocations from the (a) levelling-up fund and (b) shared prosperity fund to Wales and the rest of the UK.

Tommy Sheppard: What comparative assessment he has made of the equity of allocations from the (a) levelling-up fund and (b) shared prosperity fund to Wales and the rest of the UK.

Simon Hart: Wales is benefiting greatly from local growth funding, receiving above its population share from all three funds: 7% in the first round of the levelling-up fund, 9% in the first round of the community ownership fund and a remarkable 23% of the UK community renewal fund.

Owen Thompson: The principle behind the funds is fine, but the prioritisation of Tory-held seats in both Scotland and Wales reveals them to be just another example of pork barrel politics. Instead of meddling in devolved areas, will the Secretary of State accept that it would be beneficial to the people of the devolved nations to have greater control of decision making to do things for themselves? The Government should devolve more, instead of fiddling in devolved areas.

Simon Hart: I hope the hon. Gentleman is able to endorse what I am about to say because, of course, that is exactly what these funds do. For the first time, 22 local authorities in Wales and other stakeholders are having a say in devolution. The Welsh Government do not have a monopoly of wisdom any more than the UK Government do, and we are taking devolution to its dictionary definition. He will probably know this but, under the UK community renewal fund, Labour areas got 44% of the funding, Plaid Cymru areas got 24%, independent areas got 17% and Conservative areas were fourth at 15%.

Tommy Sheppard: Let us be clear that independent estimates tell us that, over the next five years, the difference between what the devolved Administrations would have got through structural funds and what they will get through the shared prosperity fund is £4 billion. Will the Secretary of State stop promulgating this myth, this deception, that there will be no difference as a result of leaving the EU and admit that this is just another Brexit broken promise?

Simon Hart: We are hearing a Brexit broken record, to be honest. The settlement for Wales has gone from £15.9 billion to £18 billion, plus £120 million from the levelling-up fund, plus £47 million from the community renewal fund, plus the community ownership fund, plus more than £300 million-worth of EU tail-off funds, plus £337 million of agriculture funding. It is impossible to come to any conclusion other than that this has been a fantastic settlement for Wales.

Sarah Atherton: Wrexham was fortunate enough to win one of its two levelling-up fund bids, and Wrexham County Borough Council has committed to redefining the other bid and working with officials. Will the Secretary of State let me and the council know when round 2 of the levelling-up fund will be open for bids?

Simon Hart: It will be open in the early part of next year. Any local authority that was not successful in the first round will have a chance to discuss its bid with officials to see how the application can be nuanced to achieve success next year.

Craig Williams: Montgomeryshire has not seen such a level of investment for decades. I welcome the Secretary of State’s levelling-up fund and community renewal fund—the list goes on. Mid-Wales  has never seen such investment, and I implore him to continue with this proper devolution of working with local councils and asking local people about their priorities, and to get more investment into mid-Wales.

Simon Hart: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that every single area of Wales has benefited from these schemes, which was not the case under the previous funding arrangements. It has been a joy to have the feedback and contributions we have had from local authorities across Wales, which really welcome and are getting engaged with this process.

Nia Griffith: You would never guess, would you, Mr Speaker, that the allocation of funding can be quite controversial? However, with meaningful consultation, we can reduce the risk of that. Let us suppose that two thirds of the levelling-up fund was allocated to the one third of seats held by Tory MPs in Wales. We could ensure less risk of things being called political bias. In the light of the Institute for Government’s recommendation that the UK Government should consult the Welsh Government at every stage on the shared prosperity fund, and bearing in mind the scathing report by the Public Accounts Committee on the allocation of the towns fund, what in-depth discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Welsh Government on the shared prosperity fund, and when can we expect more information?

Simon Hart: The hon. Lady fixates a bit too much on the shared prosperity fund when there are so many other funding sources out there too. Aside from stressing that there is consultation on a range of these things, and I am hoping to meet the First Minister later this week to discuss them, I remind the hon. Lady that the Welsh Government are not the only game in town; we are engaging with more people, in more parts of Wales, than has ever been the case before, and the funding settlements reflect their priorities as much as anything else. I am astonished that she is not welcoming that.

Nia Griffith: I am sure the House will be well aware that the Welsh Government have always had a strong relationship with the local government sector in Wales and have always consulted on the sharing out of EU funds. Turning to the amount of those funds, the figures are indisputable: EU funding for Wales would have meant at least £375 million in new money for this year. So with just £46 million for the community renewal fund, the Tories are leaving Wales £330 million worse off, and that is not even counting the £137 million cut in the farm support. So will the Secretary of State now stand up for Wales and pledge that in this transition to the shared prosperity fund Wales will receive not a penny less than we had under EU funding?

Simon Hart: I think you would probably reprimand me if I went through all the numbers again, Mr Speaker, so I will have to leave it to the Official Report to enable the hon. Lady to check her figures and work out exactly how well Wales has done with the record settlement. It is beholden on the shadow Secretary of State for Wales to portray a rather more optimistic picture of the future of Wales. If we are interested in attracting investment and creating jobs in Wales, she should be championing our country, not denigrating it at every opportunity she has.

Levelling-up Fund: Project Delivery

Alun Cairns: What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the progress of the delivery of projects funded by the levelling-up fund in Wales.

David Davies: The UK Government are fully focused on levelling up the whole of the United Kingdom, through programmes such as the levelling-up fund. We are working closely and directly with local authorities and other local partners right across the UK to ensure that those are delivered quickly and successfully.

Alun Cairns: Is the Minister aware that Barry in my constituency and the whole of the Vale of Glamorgan did not qualify for European funds? Does he therefore accept that the levelling-up fund is a potential game changer for the Vale of Glamorgan? May I draw his attention to the excellent proposal for a marina for Barry, which would also recover some land to make available for appropriate development? May I also ask him to pay particular attention when this application comes in?

David Davies: My right hon. Friend has long been a doughty champion of this scheme, as he has of many other schemes, including the seven UK community renewal fund projects that are going to be delivered in the Vale of Glamorgan and are worth more than £1 million. I simply say to him that we would encourage as many good-quality bids as possible from the Vale of Glamorgan and other local authorities in Wales.

Anna McMorrin: On climate action, the UK must step up to provide the funding that is needed across the whole of Wales. Despite the lack of the funding that we would have seen from the EU, the Welsh Labour Government are already delivering on renewable energy and sustainable transport and achieving the third best recycling rates in the world. Will the Secretary of State tell us what discussions he is having with his Welsh Government counterparts to discuss more climate investment?

David Davies: I am delighted to answer that, because in addition to all the many programmes that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has mentioned—the UK community renewal fund, the shared prosperity fund and the levelling-up fund—we also have the growth deals, which are delivering the very kinds of environmental projects to which the hon. Lady has just referred. Of course the growth deals are funded 50% by the UK Government and 50% by the Welsh Government, who will be receiving an extra £2.5 billion next year as a result of the most generous settlement they have ever had.

David Jones: There is tremendous enthusiasm for the levelling-up fund in both Denbighshire and Conwy, where the local authorities are champing at the bit to put in their bids. So will my hon. Friend please indicate when the second round is likely to open?

David Davies: I can indeed: it will be in the spring of next year. We look forward to receiving bids from my right hon. Friend’s local authority and local authorities throughout the rest of Wales.

Coal Tips: Safety

Alex Davies-Jones: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of Wales on the safety of coal tips in Wales.

David Davies: Last month, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and the First Minister of Wales co-chaired the coal tip safety summit, to receive an update from the joint taskforce. The taskforce has co-ordinated work to identify and categorise tips in Wales and has undertaken inspections of all the highest-risk tips, providing reassurance to the communities that live nearby.

Alex Davies-Jones: Just a few weeks ago, my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) asked the Prime Minister for support for coal tip repairs throughout our local authority area; in response, the Prime Minister said:
“This is something that I do want to try to fix”—[Official Report, 3 November 2021; Vol. 702, c. 923.]
and promised to talk to the Welsh Government. Will the Minister provide an update on those conversations? Is the plan for support being put in place, or is it just more empty words?

David Davies: I am not yet responsible for the Prime Minister’s diary, but I know that he welcomes engagement with the First Minister at every opportunity. With respect to the hon. Lady, coal tip safety is a devolved issue and the Welsh Labour Government do not seem to welcome our involvement in devolved issues. Of course, we have provided the Welsh Government with £2.5 billion of extra funding, so they have the powers and the money to deal with the issue. We urge them to get on and deal with it.

Alex Davies-Jones: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: We cannot do points of order; they come afterwards.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Wales’s dangerous coal tips loom over our industrial communities like spectres from our industrial past and remind us of how our natural resources were exploited, mostly for the benefit of others. Climate change is set to compound the risk posed by coal tips, and we expect rainfall to increase by around 6% over the next 30 years. This month, the COP26 President said it was vital
“that we help at risk communities adapt to the impact of”
climate change. How is the Minister’s refusal to settle the £600 million bill consistent with that statement?

David Davies: Included in the £2.5 billion of extra funding that will be given to the Welsh Government this year is an allocation of money precisely to deal with the sort of problems to which the right hon. Lady refers. She has often said that the UK Government should not get involved in devolved issues; this is a devolved issue, but we have provided the money for the Welsh Government to deal with it. If there are dangerous coal tips, the Welsh Government have the money and must get on and solve the problem.[Official Report, 22 November 2021, Vol. 704, c. 2MC.]

Liz Saville-Roberts: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, it is an inherited issue. Our industrial communities still bear the scars of the scorched-earth policy inflicted by Prime Minister Thatcher. The green transition must be different.
Last week, the Crown Estate revealed that it is planning to build new wind farms off the coast of Wales. The profits will disappear into Treasury coffers rather than going to the people and businesses of Wales. Will the Minister support my private Member’s Bill, which would ensure that all Crown Estate profits made in Wales are invested in Wales?

David Davies: In one breath, the right hon. Lady criticises Margaret Thatcher for closing down coalmines; in the next breath, she says that we must not have coalmines because they are bad for climate change. She will forgive me if I feel there is a certain inconsistency there, but I will look with interest at whatever Bill she has introduced.

Electric Vehicle Usage

John Lamont: What steps the Government are taking to encourage electric vehicle usage in Wales.

David Davies: The UK Government are committed to supporting electric vehicle usage in Wales, as well as across the rest of the UK, which is why we have introduced a ban on the sale of all new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 and introduced the on-street residential charge point scheme.

John Lamont: I welcome the rapid change to electric vehicles but am sure the Minister will agree that we must not let rural areas fall behind. This is an issue for Wales, but it also affects all parts of these islands, including my constituency in the Scottish Borders. What are the Government doing to support the installation of more rapid chargers in rural areas to encourage more people to make the switch to electric vehicles?

David Davies: My hon. Friend will be aware that the UK Government recently granted £187,000 from the UK community renewal fund to help the project in his constituency to provide electric vehicle charging points across the Scottish Borders. The UK Government will continue to support the installation of electric charge points through various schemes, including the £2.5 billion that has been committed to plug-in vehicle grants and charging infrastructure programmes.

Rising Energy Costs: Impact on Industry and Businesses

Tan Dhesi: What steps the Government have taken to tackle the impact of rising energy costs on industry and businesses in Wales.

David Davies: The Government have provided £2 billion to help businesses with electricity costs and to protect jobs in recent years. We also have various schemes in place—including the £315 million industrial energy  transformation fund—to support businesses with high energy use, including those in Wales, to cut their bills and reduce their carbon emissions.

Tan Dhesi: Seventy per cent. of small and medium-sized enterprises believe that high energy costs will negatively affect the growth of their companies. We know that businesses will already be hammered by this Tory Government’s national insurance hike, so what are the Secretary of State for Wales and his ministerial colleagues doing to help support Welsh and other UK businesses to overcome their energy cost problems, to provide much- needed stability, to help them plan ahead, and to deliver the growth that our economy so badly needs?

David Davies: I am sorry that we cannot persuade members of the Labour party to support a small increase in taxes to protect the national health service, but that is a matter to which we can return.
The UK Government recognise that, as we transition from energy sources such as coal and gas, there will be a cost challenge, which is why we have committed to minimising energy costs for businesses through, for example, the £470 million that has been given in relief to energy-intensive industries through a combination of compensation and exemption.

Theresa Villiers: Will my hon. Friend ensure that the efforts that the Government are rightly making to decarbonise electricity generation do not unfairly disadvantage high energy industries, because if they do, we will be exporting carbon emissions, not reducing them?

David Davies: My right hon. Friend is exactly right. The Government recognise that potential issue, which is why, for example, £470 million has been provided to high energy users through a combination of compensation and exemption. It is a very real problem to which she refers, and one that is recognised and being dealt with by the Government.

Gerald Jones: High energy costs act as a disincentive for investment from international steel and other manufacturing companies and other investors, with the UK seen as a less favourable investment environment than other countries. Other countries with less dramatic price rises are putting in prompt measures to proactively support their industries, so why are this Government so slow to act? Can the Minister outline what discussions he is having with colleagues across Government to follow similar interventions to support the steel and manufacturing industries in Wales?

David Davies: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have had, and will continue to have, a range of discussions with colleagues in other ministerial Departments as to how we resolve this problem, but the hon. Gentleman will surely recognise that we are making a revolutionary transition from high carbon emitting sources, such as coal and gas, towards renewable energy, such as wind, solar, and possibly nuclear, and that they do come with costs. They are more expensive. Members across the House will recognise the need to make that transition. The Government are leading that transition, and we are also putting in place schemes to support those who may face challenges as a result.

A5 Between Wales and England

Luke Evans: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the A5 between Wales and England.

Simon Hart: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues about cross-border connectivity, including the A5, which is a vital artery connecting north Wales to the west midlands.

Luke Evans: The A5 is a really important road joining Wales to England. There are pinch points all the way along, none more so than the most bashed bridge in Britain, right in Hinckley in my constituency. Road investment strategy 3 will be really important for joining up Wales to England, so what conversations has the Secretary of State had with the Department for Transport on decision point 1 for RIS 3 in March?

Simon Hart: I used to drive that road regularly when I was working in north Wales years ago. I met the Transport Secretary this week. Cross-border connectivity and this particular road came up in the conversation. We are very conscious of the economic impact of making sure that these things are looked at in a holistic, cross-border way. It has not helped that the Welsh Government have decided to introduce a moratorium on road improvements in Wales. That has slowed down the whole business of economic recovery quite considerably.

Shared Prosperity Fund

Chris Elmore: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of Wales on the shared prosperity fund.

Alex Cunningham: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of Wales on the shared prosperity fund.

Lindsay Hoyle: Is there anybody on the Front Bench with an answer?

Simon Hart: Mr Speaker, the answer will be worth waiting for, I promise you.
I am hoping to meet the First Minister with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in Cardiff later this week to discuss how we can best support jobs and economic growth in Wales, including through the various initiatives announced at the autumn Budget.

Chris Elmore: I am glad that the Secretary of State is with us and awake; that is always nice to see.
Let me return to the shared prosperity fund, rather than levelling up, because the Secretary of State did not actually answer my question. We have seen months and years of dither and delay, and today we have heard questions from the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) and the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) about when the shared prosperity fund will be delivered and when we will have dates for local authorities so that they can plan. Will the Secretary of  State simply set out when the shared prosperity fund will be confirmed, when the dates for bidding will take place and when local government will get the information it needs in order to bid for this long overdue funding?

Simon Hart: In my conversations with 22 local authorities, they take a much more benign approach to the funding streams than the hon. Gentleman. He obsesses about the UK shared prosperity fund. We have been clear about when that is coming through, with further announcements this year and into next. He deliberately ignores the levelling-up fund, the community renewal fund, the community ownership fund and all the other funds that have been such a success in Wales. I say to him what I said to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith): it would be a whole lot better for future investors and job creation if he spent a little more time championing Wales and a little less time criticising it.

Alex Cunningham: Well, the Secretary of State dodged that question, just as he dodged Question 1. He knows that there is a real dearth of information on the Government’s shared prosperity fund, which needy communities across Wales desperately want. The same communities drove real change with the European social fund—probably a better levelling-up fund than the Government could ever deliver. This is the Secretary of State’s second chance: when are we going to get the detail and the dates, so that in Wales and across the rest of the country we can get on with planning to spend the shared prosperity fund?

Simon Hart: I have repeated the answer to this question on countless occasions this morning. We are looking at a whole range of funding provisions in Wales. The Chancellor was able to provide a record settlement; this is the best settlement for the Welsh Government and local authorities for 20-plus years, and the hon. Gentleman should be acknowledging that.
We have actually stuck to the timescales that we have set out on numerous occasions in Welsh and other questions. The hon. Gentleman really does need to change the record. We are now witnessing record sums of money going into parts of Wales which never even qualified before; that is something that we should be championing, rather than denigrating.

Levelling-up Fund: Potential Outcomes

Simon Baynes: What assessment the Government have made of the potential outcomes of the £121 million levelling-up fund allocated to Wales.

David Davies: Wales will benefit significantly from the levelling-up fund, with projects focused on delivering jobs, promoting growth and levelling up communities. In Denbighshire and Wrexham, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Clwyd South, communities will benefit from over £16.4 million in UK Government investment through round 1 of the levelling-up fund and the community renewal fund.

Simon Baynes: How would the Minister assess the long-term economic, social and cultural impact of, and benefits arising from, the levelling-up fund in Wales,  particularly our Clwyd South bid, which he has mentioned, which will send a great deal of badly needed investment into the world heritage site at the Trevor basin, projects in Llangollen and Chirk, and a steam railway in and around Corwen?

David Davies: The successful levelling-up fund bid at the Pontcysyllte aqueduct and the canal world heritage centre will obviously maximise tourism in the area and provide significant long-term economic benefits to my hon. Friend’s constituency. However, it is just one small part of a much larger programme including the £121 million levelling-up fund, the £46 million community renewal fund and £2.5 billion extra money in a record block grant for the Welsh Labour Government, showing that this Government are committed to strengthening the Union, supporting Wales, and ensuring that jobs and prosperity flow to all parts of the United Kingdom.

Chris Bryant: One of the problems that we have in the Rhondda is a large number of disused former coal tips, one of which, as the Minister knows, slid down into the river last year. It cost us £14 million to rectify that, and we have another five similar tips in the Rhondda. Can we please have some more money to ensure that we do not have another Aberfan disaster?

David Davies: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as I said earlier, this is a devolved matter. He will also be aware that more than £2.5 billion of extra money has been provided to the Welsh Labour Government. If there are dangerous coal tips in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I urge him to talk to his colleagues in Welsh Labour, ask them to provide the money and get the problem resolved as quickly as possible.

Transport Infrastructure

Selaine Saxby: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of Wales on improving transport infrastructure in Wales.

Simon Hart: As I outlined in my previous answer, I am hoping to meet the First Minister later this week to discuss a range of issues. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that the M4 is central to cross-border connectivity, and improvements are well overdue if we are serious about levelling up.

Selaine Saxby: I can see south Wales from my North Devon constituency and I am very keen to secure a ferry crossing from Ilfracombe to south Wales, popular on both sides of the Bristol channel, with visions ranging from a Dylan Thomas literary tour through to a Barry booze cruise. Will the Secretary of State meet me to see how to progress this project?

Simon Hart: There used to be a ferry from Tenby to North Devon back in the old days. I would be very happy to see that introduced. Until the Welsh Government honour their 2016 manifesto commitment to improve the M4, the quickest way of visiting each other will be a 30-year-old ferry chugging across the Bristol channel.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Jonathan Edwards: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 November.

Boris Johnson: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Jonathan Edwards: The Prime Minister will be aware of the considerable public concern in relation to the impression that significant political donations can help acquire a peerage. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) will publish a Bill later today that will prohibit large party donors from being nominated to the other place for a period of five years. Will the Prime Minister offer full Government support to my hon. Friend’s efforts?

Boris Johnson: I will study his proposals with care when the Opposition parties commit to stop taking funds from the unions in order to control their politics.

Theresa Villiers: During a recent visit to Barnet Hospital, I was told that A&E there was routinely seeing twice the number of people for which it was designed. Thanks to the hard work of staff and big funding increases, the NHS is seeing more patients and delivering more tests, treatments and operations than at any time in its history, but what are the Government doing to urgently assist the NHS to tackle spiralling demand for healthcare and a tough winter ahead?

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for what she does to represent her hospital, and I thank the NHS staff for the amazing work that they are doing. We are supporting them, as she knows, by recruiting 50,000 more nurses and putting another £4.5 billion into the NHS over the rest of this financial year. The best thing we can do to protect our NHS over this winter is for everybody to come forward and get their booster vaccination.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer.

Keir Starmer: Trust matters, and after the last fortnight the Prime Minister has got a lot of work to do. A central plank in this Government’s promise to the north of England is a Crossrail of the north with at least an entirely new high-speed rail line between Manchester and Leeds. A Crossrail for the north; an entirely new line—that is the promise. It has already been made, so I do not want the Prime Minister fobbing off the House about waiting until tomorrow; he can say today: will he stick by that promise, yes or no?

Boris Johnson: He should wait and see what is going to be announced tomorrow, because we will produce a fantastic integrated rail plan—[Interruption.] I am not going to spoil it for them—why would I? We are going to produce a fantastic—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I expect Front Benchers to behave better than they are doing at the moment. If you do not want to listen to the answer, let me know now. I do, and I cannot hear when you all shout together. We want better politics. I expect better politics from both sides. Let us show a little more decorum than we are seeing at the moment.

Boris Johnson: When we produce our integrated rail plan tomorrow, people across the House and across the country will see what we are doing to cut journey times to make life easier and better for people in the north-east, in the north-west and in the midlands—across the whole of the north of the country—with the biggest programme of investment in rail for a century. What we are doing is giving people in those communities the same access to commuter-type services that people in the south-east of this country have felt entitled to for more than a century. That is going to be levelling up across the whole of the UK.

Keir Starmer: That was a lot of words, but it was not a yes, so that is one important promise to the north that he will not stand by. Let us look at another. In February this year, the Prime Minister told this House:
“I can certainly confirm that we are going to develop the eastern leg as well as the whole of the HS2.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 325.]
The whole of HS2—that is a new high-speed line, running continuously, no gaps, between Birmingham and Leeds. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he stands by that promise?

Boris Johnson: I am afraid that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in danger of getting hoist by his own petard. He needs to wait and see what we announce tomorrow, because I think he will find that the people of Leeds, the people of Nottingham, the people of Sheffield and the people of the whole of the north-west and the north-east of this country will benefit massively from what we are going to announce.

Keir Starmer: Again, a lot of words, but not a yes. So that is two important promises to the north that the Prime Minister will not stand by. No wonder trust in the Prime Minister is at an all-time low. Across the country, and belatedly across this House, there is now agreement that Owen Paterson broke the rules and that the Government should not have tried to let him off the hook. Many Government Members have apologised— the Business Secretary has apologised for his part, and the Leader of the House has apologised for his part, but they were following the Prime Minister’s lead. Will he do the decent thing and just say sorry for trying to give the green light to corruption?

Boris Johnson: Well, yes, as I have said before, it certainly was a mistake to conflate the case of an individual Member, no matter how sad, with the point of principle at stake. We do need a cross-party approach on an appeals process. We also need a cross-party approach on the way forward, and that is why we have tabled the proposals to take forward the report of the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life of 2018, with those two key principles: first, that everybody in this House should focus primarily and above all on their job here in this House; and, secondly, that no one should exploit their position in order to advance the  commercial interests of anybody else. That is our position. We want to take forward those reforms. In the meantime, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman can clear up from his proposals whether he would continue to be able to take money, as he did, from Mishcon de Reya and other legal firms. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Prime Minister, as you know, and I do remind you, it is Prime Minister’s questions, not Leader of the Opposition’s questions.

Keir Starmer: That is not an apology. Everybody else has apologised for the Prime Minister, but he will not apologise for himself—a coward, not a leader. Weeks defending corruption and yesterday a screeching last-minute U-turn to avoid defeat on Labour’s plan to ban MPs from dodgy second contracts. Waving one white flag will not be enough to restore trust. There are plenty of Opposition days to come, and we will not let the Prime Minister water down the proposals or pretend that it is job done. We still have not shut the revolving door where Ministers are regulating a company one minute and working for it the next. There are plenty of cases that still stain this House. There are two simple steps to sorting it out: proper independence and powers for the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, and banning these job swaps. Will the Prime Minister take those steps?

Boris Johnson: I have called for, as you know Mr Speaker, and as you have called for, a cross-party approach to this. What I think we need to do is work together on the basis of the independent report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life to take things forward and to address the appeals process. What I think everybody can see is that in a classic, lawyerly way, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now trying to prosecute others for exactly the course of action that he took himself. What I think the nation wants to know, because his register is incomplete, is who paid Mishcon de Reya and who paid the £25,000? Who paid him for his—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Prime Minister, I do not want to fall out about it. I have made it very clear. It is Prime Minister’s questions; it is not for the Opposition to answer your questions. [Interruption.] Whether we like it or not, those are the rules of the game that we are all into, and we play by the rules, don’t we? We respect this House, so let us respect the House.

Keir Starmer: That new-found commitment to upholding standards did not last long.
Here is the difference: when somebody in my party misbehaves, I kick them out. When somebody—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Clarkson, Mr Francois—[Interruption.] Order. Look, this is not good. We have lost a dear friend, and I want to show that this House has learned from it. I do not want each other to be shouted down. I want questions to be respected, and I expect the public actually to be able to hear the questions and the answers, because I am struggling to do so in this Chair. I need no more of this.

Keir Starmer: When somebody in my party misbehaves, I kick them out. When somebody in the Prime Minister’s party misbehaves, he tries to get them off the hook. I lead; he covers up.
Let us try another issue. We know that Owen Paterson was a paid lobbyist for Randox. We know that he sat in on a call between Randox and the Minister responsible for handling health contracts. We know that Randox has been awarded Government contracts worth almost £600 million without competition or tender. Against that backdrop, the public are concerned that taxpayers’ money may have been influenced by paid lobbying. There is only one way to get to the bottom of this: a full, transparent investigation. If the Prime Minister votes for Labour’s motion this afternoon, that investigation can start. Will he vote for it, or will he vote for another cover-up?

Boris Johnson: I am very happy to publish all the details of the Randox contracts, which have been investigated by the National Audit Office already. But talking of cover-ups, I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but we still have not heard why the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not tell us—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Boris Johnson: And he talks about—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Prime Minister, sit down! Prime Minister, I am not going to be challenged. You may be the Prime Minister of this country, but in this House I am in charge, and we are going to carry on. That is the end of that. I call Keir Starmer.

Keir Starmer: I think the Prime Minister just said he is happy to publish all the Randox papers in relation to these contracts, so we will take that and we will pursue it. I remind the Prime Minister that when I was Director of Public Prosecutions, I prosecuted MPs who broke the rules. He has been investigated by every organisation he has ever been elected to. That is the difference.
Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money handed to their mates and donors; Tory MPs getting rich by working as lobbyists, one not even bothering to turn up because he is in the Caribbean advising tax havens—and the Prime Minister somehow expects us to believe that he is the man to clean up Westminster! He led his troops through the sewers to cover up corruption, and he cannot even say sorry. The truth is that beneath the bluster, he still thinks it is one rule for him and another for his mates. At the same time as his Government are engulfed in sleaze, they are rowing back on the promises they made to the north, and it is working people who are paying the price. Is it any wonder that people are beginning to think that the joke isn’t funny any more?

Boris Johnson: It is plain from listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he seeks to criticise this Government while refusing to explain his own position. You have ruled on that, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] You have ruled on that, Mr Speaker, and I hear you, I hear you—but his own “Mishconduct” is absolutely clear to everybody. [Interruption.] His own “Mishconduct” is absolutely clear. Meantime, we will get on, on a cross-party basis—we will get on, on a cross-party basis —with taking forward the business that I have outlined. And we will get on with the business of this Government, which is leading the country out of the pandemic and—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Prime Minister, I am struggling to hear, but if I am correct about what was said, it was about the Leader of the Opposition and misconduct.  We cannot accuse somebody of misconduct. [Interruption.] Order. Before the Leader of the House gives me an answer, all I am going to say is that I cannot hear. If it was said, I want it withdrawn. If it was not said, I will accept that. [Interruption.] Just a moment! I call the Prime Minister.

Boris Johnson: Mr Speaker, I referred to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s “Mishconduct”, because that is what he is guilty of.

Hon. Members:: More, more!

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I do not think today has done this House any good. I will be quite honest; I think it has been ill-tempered. I think it shows the public that this House has not learned from the other week. I need this House to gain respect, but it starts by individuals showing respect to each other.

James Grundy: The people of Leigh have never accepted our forced merger with the rival town—friendly rivals—of Wigan back in 1973. Will the Prime Minister tell me how we can escape the big government of big Wigan by getting our own council back?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for his campaign against local Labour government overtaxing and delivering inadequate services. The local boundary commission will look at the boundary reviews, but in the meantime I will support him in any way that I can.

Ian Blackford: It used always to be said that the Tory MPs were behind the Prime Minister, but—my goodness—look at the gaps on the third, fourth and fifth Benches. The rebellion has clearly started.
This Tory sleaze scandal has now been hitting the headlines for the past 14 days, yet it is pretty obvious that the Prime Minister spent less than 10 minutes coming up with yesterday’s half-hearted, half-baked, and already half-botched proposals. These so-called reforms do not even scratch the surface. This sleaze scandal runs far, far deeper. Month after month the public have witnessed scandal after scandal: peerages handed to millionaire donors; VIP lanes; gifted covid contracts to Tory pals; dodgy donations for luxury holidays and home renovations. The Prime Minister and his Government have been up to their necks in sleaze. Will the Prime Minister tell us exactly which one of those scandals his proposals would have stopped?

Boris Johnson: I thank the humble crofter, as the right hon. Gentleman refers to himself, for his question. What I think we can do is pursue a cross-party approach, based on the report of the independent Committee on Standards in Public Life, which has much of profit in it. Among other things it says is that it is important that this House should be augmented with outside experience of the world, and it is important that Members of this House should have experience of the private sector, as he does. On a cross-party basis we should proceed with the couple of reforms that I have indicated.

Ian Blackford: This is about Tory sleaze and Tory corruption, and the Prime Minister has basically admitted that not one of this Government’s sleaze scandals would  have been stopped by his so-called plan. Perhaps we should not be surprised, considering that the Prime Minister has been at the rotten core of all these scandals. The trail of sleaze and scandal all leads back to the funding of the Conservative party. Since 2010, the Tory party has made nine of its former treasurers Members of the House of Lords, and every single one of them has something in common: they have handed over £3 million to the Prime Minister’s party. That is the very definition of corruption. It is the public’s definition of corruption. Will this Government finally accept that this is corruption, or is the Prime Minister the only person in the country who has the brass neck to argue that it was all one big coincidence?

Boris Johnson: I will not comment on the missing £600,000 from the Scottish National party’s accounts, but what I will say, in all sincerity and heeding what you said earlier, Mr Speaker, is that I think that these constant attacks on the UK’s levels of corruption and sleaze do a massive disservice to billions of people around the world who genuinely suffer from Governments who are corrupt, and who genuinely have no ability to scrutinise their MPs. This is one of the cleanest democracies in the world, and people should be proud of it.

Simon Baynes: Will the Prime Minister join me in celebrating the 50th anniversary this year of the formation of the 177-mile path for walkers along Offa’s Dyke, which runs through Clwyd South, and give his support to the recently launched Offa’s Dyke rescue fund to repair and preserve this monument and nature reserve for future generations?

Boris Johnson: I had the good fortune to walk Offa’s Dyke very recently. I am delighted that English and Welsh organisations are working together to protect that fantastic national monument, and Historic England has committed to give almost £300,000 more to that great cause.

Edward Davey: Ambulance response times are now the worst ever, people are waiting for ambulances longer than ever, and with A&Es in crisis, patients are stuck in ambulances outside hospital longer than ever. Waiting times are not statistics; they are about people—people often in great pain and in danger—so why are this Government closing ambulance stations in parts of our country? Why is the West Midlands ambulance service closing up to 10 community stations, including in Rugby, Oswestry and Craven Arms? With this health crisis for our ambulance services and in our A&Es, injured, sick and elderly people are being hit. When will the Prime Minister deal with this health crisis?

Boris Johnson: I appreciate that ambulance crews and ambulance services are doing an amazing job, particularly at this time of year, and I thank them for what they are doing. We are supporting them with more cash. Another £450 million was awarded to 120 trusts to upgrade their facilities, and as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are putting another £36 billion into dealing with the backlog, which is fundamentally affecting the NHS so badly at the moment, through the levy that we have instituted, which I do not think he supported.

Andrew Jones: Domestic heating accounts for 30% of UK carbon  emissions. I support the Government’s incentive scheme to replace old gas boilers with environmentally friendly alternatives. However, now that we are building more homes than we have been for many years, can we build on the success of COP26? What progress is being made on the standards for new-build homes, to make sure that they are fit for the future?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend, who is totally right to focus on the issue of future-proofing homes and making them low carbon. By 2025, our future homes standard will ensure that new homes produce at least 75% fewer CO2 emissions.

Gill Furniss: Last week I visited a GP practice in my constituency of Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough and was horrified to hear about the amount of abuse that staff are currently experiencing. Their workloads are under extreme pressure and this is not helped by the Prime Minister making demands about appointments while he has still failed on his manifesto pledge to recruit 6,000 more GPs. Will the Prime Minister apologise for this broken promise to GPs and their staff, who are on the frontline working under ever increasing pressure and depleted staffing resources?

Boris Johnson: First of all, I want to thank GPs for everything they are doing, particularly during the booster roll-out. As well as recruiting as many GPs as we can, we have 10,000 more nurses this year than last year and 25,000 more healthcare professionals altogether. There are more people now working in the NHS than at any time in its history, and because of our investment—the extra £36 billion that we are putting in—there will be even more, and I am afraid that the hon. Lady voted against that investment.

David Duguid: Following on from COP26, can my right hon. Friend confirm that maximising carbon capture and storage capacity across the whole United Kingdom is a priority for the Government—despite the doom and gloom, and words of rejection from SNP Members? Will he also confirm that the Acorn carbon capture and storage and hydrogen project in my constituency has a key role to play in this country’s future carbon capture and storage capacity targets to meet net zero?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is quite right to champion carbon capture and storage, which has a great future in Scotland in spite of all the gloomstering of the SNP. The Scottish cluster remains on the reserve. We will continue to study it and, we hope, bring it forward in due time.

Mary Glindon: The River Tyne, with its world-renowned offshore and subsea sectors, has been repeatedly sidelined by the Government, despite my and others constantly lobbying Ministers for investment that would massively increase employment opportunities and help the UK’s transition to net zero. However, I am very excited to see our voice is now  being magnified by a new Tyne taskforce set up by local authorities, the port, businesses and the combined authority.  Will the Prime Minister, here and now, commit his Government to work with us to realise the full potential of our great river?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the River Tyne is a massive economic asset for the whole of the north-east. It has suffered from historic contamination, but we are going to work with the North East local enterprise partnership to invest another £6 million to help to develop clear plans for sustainable economic growth along the whole of the estuary.

Henry Smith: Crawley constituency was one of the most negatively affected by the covid-19 pandemic, but thanks to significant support from the Government we are seeing recovery. Unemployment is now beginning to come down and we look to a confident future. In that vein, will my right hon. Friend please look favourably on Crawley’s platinum jubilee city-status bid?

Boris Johnson: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I was not aware until today that Crawley was bidding to become a city—

Chris Bryant: Resign! [Laughter.]—

Boris Johnson: —but I will look at it very carefully. I am sure there is an excellent case in there somewhere.

David Linden: Every year, 100,000 babies are born premature or sick in the UK and admitted to neonatal intensive care units. The Prime Minister will be aware that today is World Prematurity Day. There is cross-party agreement in the House to bring forward neonatal leave and pay. Rather than wait for a complex and controversial employment Bill, will the Prime Minister bring forward a standalone Bill to legislate for that, so that next World Prematurity Day the 100,000 babies and their parents do not have to choose between spending time in the hospital or unpaid leave from work?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is a passionate campaigner in this area. One way or another—I will get back to him on the exact way—we will legislate to allow parents of children in neonatal care to take extended leave, giving them more time during the most vulnerable and stressful days of their lives.

Chris Clarkson: Further education colleges like Hopwood Hall College in my constituency will play an essential part in building back better. The team at Hopwood have supported over 8,000 learners on courses as diverse as small business management and animal management, as well as six new T-level courses. May I invite my right hon. Friend to come and visit the inspirational team and the students at Hopwood Hall, and, as a special treat, come and see Middleton’s very own flamboyance of flamingos and our endangered potoroos?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for  his kind invitation. I will certainly keep it mind. The Government are absolutely committed to reforming technical education through new T-levels. That is why  we are investing a further £65 million to develop teacher retention, and support and recruitment for teachers in further education. As for the potoroos in his area, are they wild? I will do my utmost to come and inspect them.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: My constituent Laura told me that Remembrance Sunday hurts. It hurts because there have been no medals for her grandad’s service and the thousands of men involved in nuclear weapons tests overseas between 1952 and 1991. It hurts because studies of such veterans have shown increased miscarriages, increased birth defects and the same rate of genetic damage as clean-up workers at Chernobyl. And it hurts because the UK is the only nuclear power on earth that has denied recognition. So I ask the Prime Minister: will he recognise nuclear testing veterans today and agree to meet them? The Leader of the Opposition has.

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for bringing this to my attention. I will certainly make sure that we get a proper meeting with the representatives of the nuclear veterans that she mentions.

Caroline Ansell: When I was in Greece with Save the Children, I learned that change at any border was quickly communicated down the line. If migrants and asylum seekers knew that they would be directly returned to France or taken to a third country pending application, would they risk a dangerous and illegal crossing and make their way to France in the first place? I ask my right hon. Friend: what further measures are being considered? This is an issue of great concern in Eastbourne, along the coast and across the country, and I am anxious to be able to reassure my constituents that there are plans ahead.

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend very much, and she has much relevant experience from her work for Save the Children in Greece. Our only credible way of fixing this is with our new plan for immigration. That will be made possible with our new Nationality and Borders Bill, which will make it possible for us to distinguish at last between those who come here legally and those who come here illegally. I hope very much that it will command the support of the whole House.

Mike Amesbury: In May, part of Northwich station in my constituency collapsed. I have asked the Transport Secretary to intervene and build back better and fairer to allow access for people with disabilities. He has declined my kind offer, so I ask the Prime Minister to intervene: no bluster, substance, build back better and fairer Northwich station—it is in the north of England.

Boris Johnson: I am tempted to invite the hon. Gentleman to wait and see what we do for rail funding tomorrow, but I will certainly look at what he had to say about Northwich station with keen interest.

Sarah Atherton: Over 4,200 servicewomen and veterans used a democratic process to contribute to the Defence Committee’s inquiry into women in the armed forces. A formal response is still awaited from the Ministry of Defence. While the majority of women enjoy a fulfilling career in  the military, shocking issues were raised around sexual assault, bullying and harassment. I know that the Prime Minister agrees that our armed forces are the best in the world. Would he also agree that we need to make sure that the British Army is the best place to serve as a woman?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend; she is campaigning on a very important issue. Too often, we find that our armed forces fail to provide the wonderful women in our armed forces with the support they deserve. That is why I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has secured a parliamentary inquiry into this for the first time. It is vital that we support and encourage women in our armed forces, who make a massive difference to those services.

Ian Paisley Jnr: It has cost businesses in Northern Ireland £850 million to date to operate the failed and suffocating protocol. Lord Frost is today in Belfast. When will the Prime Minister fix this by legitimately activating article 16?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I think the word that I would fasten on in his question is “legitimately”. There is no question but that the use of article 16, which, after all, has been done by the EU Commission to stop vaccines being exported to this country, is something that is perfectly legal and within the bounds of the protocol.

Jane Hunt: I recently visited Humphrey Perkins School in beautiful Barrow upon Soar. The students asked me, “What are the Government doing to engage children and students from all backgrounds to encourage them to aspire to become an MP, or even Prime Minister?”

Boris Johnson: What I would say to my hon. Friend and her students is that nothing that is said or takes place in this House—none of the argy-bargy, the repartee and the occasional abuse to which we subject each other—should in any way deter anybody from seeking a career in politics, because it is a wonderful privilege and we are all very lucky to be here.

Christine Jardine: In my constituency of Edinburgh West, numerous people come to us with delays from the Department for Work and Pensions with pensions and benefits, to add to the delays that others are facing with passports and with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Can the Prime Minister tell us who—among the many jobs being done at the moment—is making sure that the Departments of Government are running smoothly and quickly?

Boris Johnson: I think that actually the Department for Work and Pensions, under the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), has performed outstanding service. It has performed miracles. Among the things that it has achieved is helping to get millions of people effectively back into employment, in spite of all the difficulties that we have faced. We now have unemployment running at virtually record lows, in spite of all the difficulties we have faced in this pandemic and as we come out of furlough. That is largely thanks to the  work of the DWP. Of course there is more that can be done and people can always up their game, but I think that the DWP and its officials working across the country —huge numbers of men and women—have done an outstanding job.

Jake Berry: In July 2019, I was in Manchester when the Prime Minister committed to building a new line, Northern Powerhouse   Rail, between Manchester and Leeds. That commitment was reaffirmed in our manifesto in November 2019, and last month it was reaffirmed in the Prime Minister’s conference speech in Manchester. Were the voters of the north right to take the Prime Minister at his word?

Boris Johnson: Yes, and they should wait and see what is unveiled tomorrow, when my right hon. Friend may learn something to his advantage.

Points of Order

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have just received word on the wires that the Leader of the Opposition—I did not hear this at the time, because there was so much noise—called the Prime Minister a coward. Surely that is in breach of “Erskine May”, is improper and should be withdrawn.

Lindsay Hoyle: There was a lot of language that I could not hear today. I certainly do not want words like that. “Coward” is not used in this House; I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition will withdraw it.

Keir Starmer: I withdraw it—but he is no leader.

Tim Farron: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Alongside the hon. Members for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), and our friend in the other place the Bishop of Durham, we have been pressing Ministers in the Home Office to permit a cross-party visit to the Napier barracks.
On 7 September, the Minister for future borders and immigration—the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster)—declined our request for an in-person visit. The Select Committee on Home Affairs was refused a visit in July. On 27 October, we again requested an on-site visit and asked the Minister to respond by 10 November; we have yet to hear anything. Despite the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons finding early this year that there were serious concerns and failings in the provision of accommodation at Napier barracks, the Government have extended the use of the barracks until 2025 and have stated that the site will be used to pilot the design of future accommodation for asylum seekers.
You can see that a visit is now more than pressing, Mr Speaker. Could you advise me whether it is in order for the Government to refuse Members of Parliament access to this important site?

Lindsay Hoyle: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. It is for the Government to decide whether to invite Members to visit the barracks. That said, the use of the barracks has been a matter of public concern and debate, and of course I would always encourage the Government to agree to such requests   from right hon. and hon. Members, not least to ensure that they are able to hold the Government to account in a well-informed manner.
I accept that there are occasions when it is legitimate for the Government to refuse a request for a visit—on security grounds, for example—although I should stress that I do not know of any reason for a refusal in this case. However, those on the Government Benches will have heard my view, namely that in principle I would hope that such requests for visits could be accommodated. At the very least, I hope that Home Office Ministers will discuss the matter properly with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that it does not take too long to contact him.

Martin Docherty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I had had no intention of raising a point of order until I heard the Prime Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) who chairs the Defence Sub-Committee on Women in the Armed Forces. The Prime Minister indicated that there would be a parliamentary inquiry, based—I think—on that report. Given that we have seen a tenfold increase in reporting of rape and sexual assault of women under the age of 18 in the armed forces, Mr Speaker, can you tell the House why the Government, and the Prime Minister in his answer today, have not met the demands of my hon. Friend, and are not implementing the Wigston review?

Lindsay Hoyle: That was actually a continuation of an earlier question, but I will say that we take seriously the point that has been made. If the hon. Member for Wrexham feels that she needs a statement, or that an urgent question could possibly provide an answer to her wishes to continue this, I am sure that it could be viewed favourably.
I assume that there are no further points of order. It is certainly very quiet.

BILL PRESENTED

Peerage Nominations (Disqualification of Party Donors) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Angus Brendan MacNeil, supported by Ben Lake, Douglas Chapman, Liz Saville Roberts, Patricia Gibson, Carol Monaghan, Hywel Williams and Jonathan Edwards, presented a Bill to prevent persons who have donated £50,000 or more to a political party within the previous five years from being nominated for a peerage.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 November, and to be printed (Bill 192).

Disposable Barbecues

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Robert Largan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the use of disposable barbecues on open moorland; to give local authorities the power to prohibit the sale of disposable barbecues in their area; and for connected purposes.
This year alone, at least two wildfires have been caused by disposable barbecues in High Peak, destroying hectares of farmland and environmentally significant peatland. In 2019, a fire in Marsden Moor near Huddersfield raged for four days and damaged more than 700 hectares of moorland. A similar fire in April 2021 caused an estimated £200,000 worth of damage. Alongside that crude financial cost lies an environmental one. This is damage that will take hundreds if not thousands of years to repair, with peat accumulating at a rate of only about 1 mm per year. Distressed sheep farmers have conveyed to me the pain that they have experienced in being forced to clear up the charred remains of their own livestock.
Every year, from spring to summer, communities across the country live in fear of wildfires that are entirely avoidable. A local gamekeeper once told me that there were three main causes of wildfires—men, women and children—but more specifically, a large number of fires are caused simply by people not disposing of their barbecue properly, leaving it unattended on the ground where its residual heat or a stray spark is enough to start a fire.
The aims of this Bill are simple. They are to reduce the risk of wildfires and protect our beautiful countryside, to protect local communities faced with the threat of wildfires, to protect hard-pressed farmers’ livelihoods, and to protect carbon-capturing peatland, which is so vital in our fight back against climate change. That last point is particularly important, especially given the recent climate change agreement in Glasgow. The Glasgow agreement is an important step forward: 65 countries have committed themselves to phasing out the use of coal power, some of the world’s largest car manufacturers have agreed to make all new car sales zero-emission by 2040, and the leaders responsible for 90% of the world’s forests have pledged to end deforestation by 2030.
However, when we speak of international co-operation, we should not forget the importance of nature-based solutions to climate change. Peatland restoration is an essential part of that. Wet, healthy peat soils absorb and trap carbon dioxide. It is estimated that, worldwide, peatland contains more than 550 gigatonnes of carbon—more than is stored in all the world’s forests put together. Since it regulates the flow of groundwater, restoring peatland also reduces the risk of flooding, improves water quality and enhances biodiversity.
Since being elected, I have actively campaigned for the restoration of our local peat moors. I asked my very first question in this House on this subject and I am proud to have secured a significant increase in funding for this vital work. I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s England peat action plan to restore, sustainably manage and protect peatland, as well as the increase in the nature for climate fund to £750 million by 2024-25, with the aim of restoring 35,000 hectares of peatland across England.
I have seen first-hand the fantastic work that funding makes possible. On Rushup Edge and Brown Knoll, one of the highest hills in the Peak District, the Moors for the Future Partnership has been hard at work restoring peatland. Recently, I took the farming Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), to meet Hope Valley Farmers and to see the work on Brown Knoll. I am encouraged by the leadership that the Government have shown in this issue.
That work is meaningless, however, if we are to continue to allow a reckless few to destroy this precious resource by wildfire. I did not come into politics to tell people how to live their lives, and this Bill certainly does not set out to do that, but, as a conservative, I firmly believe that we hold a duty to future generations not only to conserve what we have today, but to provide them with an inheritance greater than our own.
While this Bill represents only a modest change to the law, it would be a mistake to overlook its significance. The aims of the Bill are not new, but build on work that a range of organisations have already undertaken. The New Forest and Peak District National Park Authorities, for example, have already banned the use of disposable barbecues within their boundaries and called for local retailers to stop their sale. I have had considerable success in convincing retailers to remove them from sale within High Peak; I pay tribute to responsible businesses such as Morrisons, which has removed them from sale in its Buxton store, while the Co-operative Group has also removed displays of disposable barbecues in 130 of its stores that border national parks.
The National Fire Chiefs Council, Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service, the Moorland Association, the Moors for the Future Partnership and the National Trust, among others, have all warned of the danger that disposable barbecues present and have called for tougher regulations on their use. This Bill provides just that.
While the countryside code already sets out an expectation that visitors should only barbecue where it has been deemed safe to do so, there is no law to enforce that guidance. Without one, there is widespread confusion and ignorance, sowing the seeds for future wildfires. The Bill seeks to clarify the law, banning the use of disposable barbecues on open moorland.
I am incredibly grateful to colleagues on both sides of this House for the positive, cross-party support that the Bill has received. I have worked hard with a range of partners to ensure that it is fit for purpose, and I will keep working in a bipartisan spirit to do so. I am aware that, as a ten-minute rule Bill, there is little chance of this Bill progressing into law at this stage. None the less, I seriously urge the Government to listen to the concerns raised in the Bill, to act on disposable barbecues and to redouble their efforts to promote, and to educate people on, the countryside code. To prevent wildfires, to protect farmers’ livelihoods and to build up our existing defences against climate change, this Bill offers a small but significant way forward. With that in mind, I humbly request that the Bill be given due consideration and be passed into law.

Lindsay Hoyle: May I personally thank the hon. Gentleman for this Bill? As he knows, I was affected by those severe moorland fires in my constituency.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Robert Largan, Mr John Baron, Karen Bradley, Damian Green, Andrew Gwynne, Simon Hoare, Helen Hayes, Kevin Hollinrake, Simon Jupp, Jason McCartney, Munira Wilson and Sammy Wilson present the Bill.
Robert Largan accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 January 2022, and to be printed (Bill 193).

Opposition Day

[8th Allotted Day]

Randox Covid Contracts

Angela Rayner: I beg to move,
That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House the minutes from or any notes of the meeting of 9 April 2020 between Lord Bethell, Owen Paterson and Randox representatives, and all correspondence, including submissions and electronic communications, addressed or copied to, or written by or on behalf of, any or all of the following:
(a) a Minister or former Minister of the Crown,
(b) a Special Adviser of such a Minister or former Minister, or
(c) a Member or former Member of this House
relating to the Government contracts for services provided by medical laboratories, awarded to Randox Laboratories Ltd. by the Department for Health and Social Care, reference tender_237869/856165 and CF-0053400D0O000000rwimUAA1, valued at £133,000,000 and £334,300,000-£346,500,000 respectively.
At the heart of this debate are two very simple questions. Do the Government have anything to hide? And will Members opposite now vote for a clean-up or a cover-up? I say “Members opposite,” but there are not many Members opposite to say it to.
The Prime Minister, just minutes ago, said in answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition:
“I am very happy to publish all the details of the Randox contracts”.
If that is the case, the Prime Minister should vote for our motion and publish all the documents and correspondence related to the Randox contracts and the dodgy lobbying that went on around them.
The motion before the House is very simple. We already know that the former Member for North Shropshire broke the rules on lobbying. We already know that Randox was awarded nearly £600 million of taxpayers’ money without a tender. We already know that Randox was awarded a second £347 million contract having failed to deliver on a previous £133 million contract. And we already know the decision was made after a conference call involving the then Member for North Shropshire and the then Health Minister, Lord Bethell.
What we do not know is what happened in those meetings, who else was present, what was discussed and what was decided.

Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point about who was at the meetings. It is not just a convention but an absolute necessity that, when a Minister meets a Member of Parliament or, indeed, an outside body, they are accompanied by civil servants who make a record of the meeting. Can we be certain as to whether the Minister was accompanied by civil servants who took those notes?

Angela Rayner: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He has been a Member for a long time, and he is aware these conventions and procedures are there to ensure that process is followed and recorded, but we do not  know what was said in any of the correspondence before or after, including from private email accounts and phones. We do not know why or how these contracts were awarded. I hope the Minister for Care and Mental Health can give us some insight. We do not know what rules might have been broken and what role the lobbying of the former Member for North Shropshire played in the Government’s decision.

Alex Cunningham: We all know about the failures of the Government’s dodgy crony contracts, which have wasted taxpayers’ money by the billion. Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only should the Government come clean but they should get the cash back to spend on projects like a new hospital for Stockton to help deal with our huge health inequalities?

Angela Rayner: My hon. Friend makes a crucial point, and it is why the public are so frustrated. We know there has been waste in some of these contracts, and that money is needed in many parts of our country and in many areas of our constituencies. We know that money could have been better spent, and we know the cost of not doing it properly.

Chris Elmore: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it speaks volumes that Conservative Members cannot be bothered to turn up to defend the Government’s position? Does she agree that the reason they have not turned up is because they know what they are doing is wrong? The country deserves so much better than what the Tories are delivering for them.

Angela Rayner: I do not think I have ever seen the Government Benches so empty when I have been at the Dispatch Box. It is quite novel. It is not just about respect for this House; it is about respect for the public who are watching and who want to know the answers. They want to know what elected Members on both sides of the House think.
The Government have refused to provide answers to the freedom of information requests on these points, and this is far from the only time that they have swerved scrutiny on their decisions. Take the mystery of Lord Bethell’s mobile, for example. The House may recall that the Prime Minister’s official spokesperson categorically denied that Ministers ever use private accounts for Government business, only for that denial to fall apart. The Government have now admitted in court that Lord Bethell corresponded about public contracts via WhatsApp or text message, and searches of his three private email accounts using covid contract keywords unearthed tens of thousands of messages and documents.
In December 2020, Lord Bethell was told his mobile phone would be searched for documents. Just weeks later, he said he had replaced his phone. First, he claimed his phone had been lost, then he said it was broken and then he said he had given it away to a family member. Finally, nearly a year on, he remembered that he had his phone all along, but that unfortunately he was in the habit of deleting his entire WhatsApp history and, sadly, the relevant messages may have been lost. He said the problem—I am not making this up—was exacerbated by having two phones, a personal phone and an official phone. I can at least agree with him on that; I am  not kidding.

Dawn Butler: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Good Law Project, which started to close the net on Lord Bethell by unearthing all his burner, drug dealer-type actions?

Angela Rayner: I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the Good Law Project. Over the past couple of weeks we have been talking about the sleaze and corruption we have seen. The Prime Minister spoke at Prime Minister’s questions about how sleaze and corruption affect the UK. I say to him and to Conservative Members that it is not the UK that is sleazy and corrupt, as we have seen in how the UK has responded to the sleaze and corruption; it is this Government who are sleazy and corrupt.

Sam Tarry: The problem is that the Government are rotting from the head down. The Prime Minister has to get a grip on his own actions, bearing in mind he has appeared before the sleaze watchdog three times and he had a corrupt track record as London Mayor. We cannot stand on a global stage and say we are not a corrupt country until he is cleaner than clean.

Angela Rayner: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This goes to the nub of the problem. The Prime Minister—even when asked to apologise by the Leader of the Opposition; even when his Ministers have already apologised; and even when Conservative Members will not attend this debate because they are embarrassed by their Government’s actions—refuses to accept his responsibility. That is why we are calling for transparency today.

Emma Hardy: I would like the Minister to think for a moment about the companies that were not awarded contracts. Arco, in my constituency, is known for being the UK’s leader in safety equipment. It had a warehouse full of personal protective equipment that it would have been willing to give to the NHS but, for some reason, it could not find its way through the maze of bureaucracy involved in awarding Government contracts. We hear about companies being awarded contracts that had no record of expertise or knowledge, yet companies such as Arco were denied. How can that be right?

Angela Rayner: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have heard about this distinction from other companies and organisations that have experience in the field; they feel as though they were blocked and there was not a transparent process for them to go through. We have seen concerns about how procurement decisions were being made for companies such as Randox, with the lack of any paper trail showing that they were made properly. How is that fair? The question is very simple: what are Ministers hiding?

Bambos Charalambous: Is that not the nub of the point: the fact that Ministers are using WhatsApp messages to make contracts is a way of circumventing the procurement process, which is there to protect the probity of Government spending? That is why we should be challenging these things as firmly as we can.

Angela Rayner: My hon. Friend makes a good point on probity. If Ministers have nothing to hide and no rules were broken, surely they would be happy to publish  the details of these meetings and the correspondence. But they have refused time and time again to do so. So today we have tabled this motion and we will put it to a vote, because the only logical conclusion is that there is something to hide—that the dodgy lobbying at the heart of this scandal has played a part in how vast sums of taxpayers’ cash have been spent.

Angela Eagle: My right hon. Friend is making a strong case indeed for reforming this rotten process. Does she agree that when this House granted the Government the powers under emergency legislation to handle the procurement of important medical supplies, it did not expect for one second this orgy of procurement outrages, this feeding frenzy of money for their friends and donors, and the ransacking of public money to help their own that we have seen?

Angela Rayner: My hon. Friend makes a crucial point. I say it again: in all my time in Parliament, I have never seen the Benches opposite so empty. I will be gracious to a number of Conservative Members who have expressed, both in public and in private, their concerns about this issue. I urge Members from across the House to look at this issue not in a party political sense, but by examining the damage it has done. The Prime Minister talks in PMQs about the UK and sleaze and corruption, but he has brought that to the UK and has undermined—[Interruption.] Even former Conservative Prime Ministers have raised concerns about the Prime Minister’s conduct. So I do not want to make it too party political, because I can see from the sparseness on the Benches opposite that many Conservative Members absolutely agree with us.

Barry Sheerman: I am listening with great interest to the very good speech my right hon. Friend is making. I have been in the House a bit longer than her. I came here in 1979 and I have never seen anything like this. It is an honourable thing for every Member to champion firms in their constituency. I tried to help businesses in my constituency to get orders at this time but I could not get through; it was not a level playing field. May I also remind the deputy leader of my party that I have been here all this time and I have never seen this determined boycotting of an important debate on an Opposition day in all my years in the House?

Angela Rayner: I thank my hon. Friend for that, and I remind him that I was born in 1980, so I am definitely going to—[Laughter.] I also remind him that I am a grandma and my granddaughter is four next week. He has considerably more experience than this granny, so I will bow to his better judgment on that. It is a shame that so many are not here for this very important debate. It is important because it goes to the heart of what we are here for. People want to see that we are really taking these issues seriously. The public have an interest in making sure that the rules and the transparency that they expect from our Government are upheld.

Lilian Greenwood: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many of our constituents are extremely angry about this, not just because there is cronyism and corruption, but, worse still, because there  has been a massive waste of taxpayers’ money? Many of the contracts that the Government let for PPE did not even result in the PPE being provided? What was provided was substandard and therefore it has been a massive waste of our money, which could have been better spent on services in our constituencies.

Angela Rayner: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that, which leads me to my second simple question for the House today. Two weeks ago, the Government led Conservative Members through the Lobby for a stitch-up and a cover-up. Many of those Members have publicly and privately expressed their regret at voting in favour of that motion, and I have no doubt that their regret is sincere. They surely must now look with fresh eyes at those who led them through the Lobby. The Prime Minister brought shame on our democracy and on this House. That vote undermined trust in our democracy and the integrity of public office. So today I say to right hon. and hon. Members opposite: learn the lesson; do not vote for another cover-up.
The first step in restoring trust is publishing these documents today. Taxpayers’ money must be treated with respect, not handed out in backhand deals to companies that pay Conservative MPs to lobby on their behalf. Randox is just the tip of the iceberg in this scandal. Just yesterday, we finally found out the list of the favoured suppliers referred to—the so-called VIP lane for PPE procurement. This is the information that Ministers have failed to release of their own accord, despite a ruling from the Information Commissioner; we found out only because of a leak. No wonder they did not want to publish it. We already knew that those companies that got to the VIP lane were 10 times more likely to win a contract than anyone else. As Ministers have belatedly admitted, many of these did not go through the so-called “eight-stage process” of diligence. We now know how these companies got into the VIP lane in the first place. Not a single one of them had been referred by a politician of any political party other than the Conservative party. Of the 47 successful companies revealed yesterday, the original source of referral was a Conservative politician or adviser in 19 cases. The then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Cabinet member who oversaw the entire emergency procurement programme, fast-tracked a bid from one of his own personal friends and donors, who went on to win hundreds of millions of pounds of public money.

Dawn Butler: My right hon. Friend might also reference an article by Sam Bright from Byline Times, who talks about the fact that £1 billion of contracts have been awarded to Conservative donors.

Angela Rayner: And £3.5 billion of contracts have been handed out by this Government to their political donors and Ministers’ mates. Almost £3 billion more has been wasted on unusable PPE, which is costing British taxpayers £1 million a day just to store. So, yes, we need an investigation into that, too. We need an investigation into every pound and penny that has been handed out, and to learn the lessons so that public money is not wasted again. But the question before the House today is very simple: do we choose to clean up or to cover up?

Matt Western: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. There is one point about the contracts as they stand and another  about the situation going forward. Just last week, I had to get a flight back into the UK. I filled in the England passenger locator form and there was a drop-down menu for the day 2 lateral flow test with 15 companies listed. Of those 15, three were Randox. I chose another; it turned out to be Randox. Is this part of a wider scam?

Angela Rayner: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The general public are also asking these questions. That is why the question is: do we clean up or cover up? Are we going to have the transparency that the public deserve and that Members from all parties deserve?
I know that Members throughout this House care about our democracy. Although we disagree on many things, I hope we can agree on the importance of trust in our politics and the values of honesty and integrity in public office. A vote for our motion today is simply a vote for the truth, to tackle the dodgy lobbying that has brought shame on this House. The Prime Minister has created a corruption scandal that has engulfed his Government and his party. I have to say that voting for another cover-up today would send a very clear message to the electorate: that the Prime Minister cares more about covering up dodgy lobbying than putting things right—that he cares more about his self-interest than the public interest. After the last two weeks, that cannot be the message that Government Members want to send. I hope they are listening; let us end the cover-up and begin the clean-up.

Gillian Keegan: I am grateful to the Opposition for using today’s debate to raise such an important matter. I welcome the opportunity to debate it and to introduce a few facts.
We have risen to meet the greatest public health challenge in a generation, by working together. Whether it is the NHS, Government, academia, industry, the Army or, indeed, the British people, we have all had our part to play. That has meant that, today, we have given over 110 million life-saving vaccine doses and are now rolling out the booster programme. We have launched game-changing treatments such as dexamethasone and Ronapreve and, of course, built the largest testing infra- structure in Europe, with the new-found ability to test millions of people in a single day.

Dawn Butler: Why did we not use the infrastructure that existed when we were building the system?

Gillian Keegan: That is a very good question and one that I myself have asked. It is important to look at what we actually did. The equipment we had was in universities, and some of it was in NHS labs, but they did not have the scale that we needed, so we all worked together in what they call the triple-helix partnership: universities, the NHS and industry worked together to build and scale up to the level we needed. If you remember, there was discussion at the time about moonshot testing; you all laughed, as you always do because you do not have to deliver, but we delivered it. We delivered the moonshot.

Chris Elmore: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your guidance. The Minister keeps referring to the House as “you” which, I am pretty sure you will be aware, is used to addressed you, Mr Speaker. It is not you who has been dealing with contracts; it is the Government, and not Opposition MPs.

Lindsay Hoyle: Thanks for that. What I will say is that I take no responsibility for the letting of these contracts, and nor do I wish to. I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I was letting things flow because, in fairness to the Minister, she is defending an impossible position. In fairness, when someone gets a bad hand, at times it is best to let them go on.

Gillian Keegan: I am feeling my luck, Mr Speaker.

Dawn Butler: May I clarify that, first, the Government did not actually deliver the moonshot, and secondly, that in the end the £100 billion for private companies was diverted to local councils and authorities, which were the ones that delivered the vaccination roll-out, with the help of the NHS, which is a socialist endeavour? I caution the Minister not to twist the truth.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am sure that no Member would twist the truth.

Gillian Keegan: The hon. Lady asked me about testing, which is what I answered on. Her question was about testing.
Let me move on—

Barry Sheerman: Before the Minister moves on too much, may I make a quick intervention? I know she has a tough job today.

Gillian Keegan: I do not mind; I am happy to take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Minister accept that none of us on the Opposition Benches would fault anything done by the wonderful team and the effort that went into finding and developing the vaccine? We believe all that was wonderful; the problem is what came out about the equipment contracts and the testing contracts. It can be done above board and brilliantly, and it was in the production of a vaccine, but it was not in the other endeavours. That is what we are trying to say. I know the Minister is going to keep going on about the vaccine—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not being fair. As he reminded us all earlier, he came to this place in 1979, so he knows the rules, and no rule is more apparent than that interventions have to be brief and not speeches. If he wants to speak, I am happy to put him on my list. He should not use up all his words just yet.

Gillian Keegan: I will use a few words to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. We are in the position we are in today because of the countless powerful partnerships we have built. If we cast our minds back to less than two years ago, we faced a far more uncertain picture. SARS-CoV-2, which later became known as covid-19, had no known treatment and no vaccine, and we had little to no ability to test for it. It was spreading through the world at unprecedented speed, causing unprecedented death and widespread despair. I am sure that Members, when given a moment to pause and reflect, can recall just how they felt as they saw those harrowing pictures, first in Wuhan and later in the hospitals of Italy and Spain. With grim foreboding, we saw this very unfamiliar virus heading to our shores.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Gillian Keegan: I will give way to hon. Members, but if they want to hear some of the facts, of which I have lots, I am happy to get on with my speech. I will give way to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) on this occasion.

Karl Turner: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She has been given a terribly tough gig, but she does not seem to be answering the point made a little earlier. Arco in Hull had existed for 135 years and had supplied the NHS with top-quality products since its very inception. It was blocked from the VIP lane—why?

Gillian Keegan: As I said, I would like to get on to answering some of these questions, so if Members will bear with me and let me get my speech out, I will have time to answer further interventions.
The context in which we were operating was the fear that we would run out of vital testing equipment, that we would not have the capacity to test people for covid and that, as a result, this deadly virus would continue to pass from person to person, overwhelm our national health service and cause untold devastation. It is the duty of any responsible Government to do all they can to prevent such a grim outcome, to save lives, to protect our key workers and to partner with as many people as are available with the experience and expertise to get things done. So we engaged with many thousands of businesses, large and small, from all over the country and all around the world, to set out what we needed and find out what they could do.
Randox has been globally recognised in the in vitro diagnostics industry for nearly 40 years. It is a British business with roots in Northern Ireland and a history of developing diagnostics solutions for hospitals, clinical settings and research labs. Even as early as March 2020, Randox had lab-based polymerase chain reaction testing capacity for covid-19. Against the fears that we would not have enough testing capacity, we worked with companies with existing diagnostic capability—that is just plain common sense.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Gillian Keegan: As I have said, I would like to press on. I know that Members are very keen to get my words —[Interruption.] My words are correct.
As I was saying, this was against the fears that we would not have enough testing capacity. Members must remember those days. We all knew it. We saw it on the news every single night. So we worked with the companies that had existing diagnostic capabilities, and that is just plain common sense.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Gillian Keegan: I will not give way until I get some facts out, so can hon. Members please bear with me?
Moreover, working with Randox made sense with respect to our cross-UK efforts against covid-19, giving us the ability to use the existing facilities in Northern Ireland for the benefit of the whole United Kingdom. Initial contracts with Randox were procured under regulations that allow us to marshal goods and services with extreme urgency in exceptional circumstances, and these were extremely exceptional circumstances, Mr Speaker. There  is no question but that Randox played its part. The initial challenge that it faced was the challenge facing Governments the world over: a shortage of machinery and transport. None the less, it quickly overcame them to play a critical role in our pandemic response.
An independent assessment in June 2020, which the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) might like to read, found that Randox was ahead of all other labs in terms of its process, its plans and its reporting, so a six-month extension was agreed in September 2020. By March this year, Randox was actually exceeding its contract target—

Jon Ashworth: Will the Minister give way?

Gillian Keegan: I will get the target out and then I shall let the right hon. Gentleman intervene.
The target that Randox exceeded, which was its contract target, was processing more than 120,000 tests in a single day.

Jon Ashworth: I am grateful to the Minister for running through the dates. She may recall that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care came to this House in, I believe, July of last year to announce that 750,000 Randox tests that were being used in care homes had to be withdrawn because they were faulty. Subsequent to that announcement, the Government awarded a £350 million contract to Randox. Why?

Gillian Keegan: Why? It was because the Government were trying to get out as many tests as possible. As I said, Randox processed—[Interruption.] Just to put it into context, Randox has, to date, carried out more than 15 million tests for covid-19, and identified more than 700,000 positive cases. That is 700,000 people who might otherwise have gone on to spread the disease. As a result of this testing capacity, they received the right advice to isolate, thereby protecting their friends, their family and society at large.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am prepared to take at face value everything that she says about Randox, but it does then raise in my mind the question of what exact benefit the company had from engaging the services of Owen Paterson. That being the case, will the Minister commit now at the Dispatch Box to publish the minutes of the telephone conference call of which he was part?

Gillian Keegan: Obviously, I cannot answer that question. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the only people who can answer that question are those at Randox and the gentleman that he referred to—Owen Paterson.

Alistair Carmichael: rose—

Gillian Keegan: I am happy to give way again.

Alistair Carmichael: Just to be quite clear about this, is the Minister saying that her Department does not hold minutes of that conference call? That, from my experience of having been in government, would be a quite remarkable departure from accepted procedure.

Gillian Keegan: With respect, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has ever been in government during a global pandemic. What I was answering was his question about the value to a company of employing someone on a contract. I cannot answer that. On the minutes, I think that we have said that we will publish things here in the Library. [Interruption.] I will get on to that.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I just say that this is a very interesting question? I know that the Minister has been put on the spot in being asked to provide an answer, but meetings should be logged and minutes of official meetings should be held. If the Minister cannot provide an answer to this very serious question today, I hope that it will be looked into, because it will bring a lot of other things into question if what has been said is indeed the case. I do not want to make a political point, but I am very concerned about this matter for all of us in this House. I am sorry to interrupt you, Minister.

Dawn Butler: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you make it absolutely clear—and I have been in government— that regardless of whether we are in a pandemic, there is an agenda for ministerial meetings and a civil servant present? A pandemic is not an excuse for not recording minutes of meetings.

Lindsay Hoyle: In fact, to answer that point of order, I would have thought that it was even more important to hold meetings on the basis that we were in a pandemic, with minutes that we could refer back to. I am very, very concerned. I do not want to put anybody on the spot, but at some point this matter does need to be clarified.

Gillian Keegan: I will pull out that part of my speech now, so that people can hear it. We will give Members what information is held and in scope. We will come back to Parliament and deposit it in the Libraries of the House. We will commit to do that. I would like to press on now.

Tony Lloyd: rose—

Gillian Keegan: I will give way one more time—and I mean one more time.

Tony Lloyd: I am genuinely very grateful to the Minister. I have a lot of respect for her and she should know that. She may not be able to answer this question, but I hope that she will actually say that she cannot answer it. She appeared to say to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) that he had not been a Minister during this time of national emergency. That is true, but can she be absolutely clear whether she knows if the conversation between Lord Bethell and a representative of Randox was minuted by civil servants, or does she know that it was not minuted, or will she simply not say? It would be helpful for the record today if we had that information. Does she know?

Gillian Keegan: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman knows that, personally, I was not there at the time. The meeting to which he refers was a courtesy call from the Minister to Randox to discuss RNA extraction kits. That was declared on the ministerial register of calls and meetings, but I have been unable to locate a formal note of that meeting. By the way, that meeting was after any contracts were let with Randox, which I will get onto.

Angela Eagle: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have just heard the Minister say that there are no minutes of this so-called courtesy call. Can you tell us what we, as Members of the House, can do on learning this through this House, given the astonishing nature of the revelation that the Minister has just made that there have been meetings with no minutes? These are official meetings that involve Government Ministers, and she is unable to locate a copy of what happened at a meeting that clearly took place.

Lindsay Hoyle: In all fairness, the Minister should be given time. There are Parliamentary Private Secretaries here, and I am sure that they will have heard and will try to get an answer to the question if we do not have that information. I would expect Government meetings with other people present always to be minuted. If they are not, it opens up another question. I do not want that question to be opened up, as I would prefer it to be answered. Therefore, I am sure that, at some point, we will get that answer. It is a fair point to be made, but in fairness to the Minister, I do not want to end up with a frenzy. Hopefully, some information will be fed back to her—I am looking to the Parliamentary Private Secretaries behind her to see whether it can be fed in at the moment.

Gillian Keegan: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Clive Efford: rose—

Gillian Keegan: Can I please just get some of these points out?
Of course, there are a phenomenal set of safeguards in place. The National Audit Office has reviewed the testing contract, and it has confirmed that all the proper contracting procedures were followed.

Seema Malhotra: The Minister has just said that there would be a review of what information is available that is “within scope”. Will she just make it clear to the House what she understands to be within scope?

Gillian Keegan: I do not have a definition of what is within scope, but we will provide that information.
The NAO report said that
“the ministers had properly declared their interests, and we found no evidence of their involvement in procurement decisions or contract management.”
The NAO has confirmed that all the proper contracting procedures were followed. As with all Government contracts, contracts with Randox are published online and can be found through Contracts Finder. I think that hon. Members will find that the date of the contract precedes any minutes or meetings that we have been talking about. In case any Opposition Members have forgotten, Ministers have no role in the evaluation of Government contracts, in the procurement process, in the value of contracts, in the scope of contracts or in the length of contracts. From start to finish, the procurement process is rightly carried out by commercial professionals, who are governed by a strict regulatory framework. I know this, because I was a procurement manager for much of my career before coming here.

Dawn Butler: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has been given a really hard gig today and I am actually beginning to feel sorry for her, because she has  been given a script that is filled with inaccuracies, and the NAO report is filled with inaccuracies. It is really worrying that the Minister is continuing with an inaccurate script.

Lindsay Hoyle: First of all, that is a point of debate, and the hon. Lady would not expect me to be brought into the debate. Ministers must answer points in their way, and it is for the Opposition to open up the statements that have been made. That is why we have Opposition days, in which I expect people to pose questions. I am sure that when the Minister sums up, she will fill in some of the voids. I am not responsible for what the Minister says; I certainly do not want to be and it would be wrong even to consider that I should be.

Gillian Keegan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course, we all know that everything I say will go on the record and hon. Members can challenge it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Gillian Keegan: May I just make a little bit of progress, as I have been generous with my time? I am happy to be here and I am trying to answer hon. Members’ question as best I can.
I was a procurement professional for many years, and in preparing for today I have spoken to all the procurement professionals involved. We have to remember that they are highly trained, highly commercial, highly professional and highly regulated, and that they have an independent process that Ministers do not get involved with. I have only been a Minister for just under two years, but I can confirm that that is the procurement process.

Dawn Butler: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Gillian Keegan: I do not need any help on the procurement process.
I can confirm that no exception was made for Randox. Of course, Ministers have a role in understanding what is happening with contracts. We have calls and meetings with our commercial partners to find out what challenges they are facing, to drive them to go as fast as they can and to hold them to the commitments that they have made. Such meetings are only natural, but they are nothing to do with the actual contracts; they are to do with delivery and holding our partners to account on their commitments, as is only natural. We have behaved exactly as hon. Members would expect from a responsible Government operating in a national crisis.
The Government do not intend to vote against this Humble Address. We will review what information we hold in scope and—in answer to the question from the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) —we will define the scope. We will come back to Parliament and deposit the information in the Libraries, in line with the Government’s established stance on responses to Humble Addresses.

Angela Rayner: I welcome the Minister’s comments and hope that that transparency comes forward, but may I just remind her that part of the reason we tabled this motion was that the process was not followed, and there are questions about the process and how Ministers were able to fast-track through a VIP lane.

Gillian Keegan: The VIP lane process was part of ensuring that we were aware of companies’ capabilities. At that point, they then went through a procurement process with highly trained, professional procurement people, whom I have spoken to and who would be quite insulted by the right hon. Lady’s thinking that they had not followed all the procedures.
This does not mean that we do not believe that there are lessons to learn; of course there are. No one can face such an unprecedented challenge and conclude that everything worked perfectly, and that is not what we are saying. We remain committed to procurement reform and are looking at coming forward with some. Last December, we published our transforming public procurement Green Paper, which provided commercial terms across Government. We have clarified the roles and responsibilities of everyone involved in decision making, and are determined to do all that we can to ensure that we have a simple and less bureaucratic system that is underpinned by the enduring principles of fair and open competition.

Alexander Stafford: Does the Minister agree that this is a situation that happened across the United Kingdom? I am under the impression that the SNP Government in Scotland gave £500 million-worth of contracts without competition, so what happened in England and the UK was no different to what happened in other parts of the country; this is how everyone operates in a global pandemic.

Gillian Keegan: The most important thing in a global pandemic is to secure supply of something that is not widely available across the world—to get security of supply—and that is what we did. We all know that there was a time when we were worried about running out of PPE, about not having enough testing capacity and about not having the large scale of supplies needed to meet the demand. Of course, any responsible Government would do that.
As I was saying, we are looking at procurement systems and are determined to do all that we can to ensure that we have a system that is simple and less bureaucratic, but which is still underpinned by the enduring principles of fair and open competition. We are also implementing the recommendations of the first and second Boardman reviews into improving procurement.

Matt Western: Will the Minister give way?

Gillian Keegan: Let me just finish this point and then I will give way, because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is listening carefully and wants to hear these words.
Hon. Members will be aware that we have established an independent public inquiry that will begin work in the spring, with full powers under the Inquiries Act 2005, including the ability to compel the production of all relevant materials. We expect that the inquiry will be a valuable opportunity for us all.

Debbie Abrahams: May I just correct a couple of things that the Minister has said? First, Exercise Cygnus and Exercise Alice both identified shortages of PPE should there be a global pandemic, although it was never a question of if; it was always a question of when. Secondly, on the procurement disaster, the Minister should not forget  that the Government were found to have acted unlawfully in the publication of their contracts in the action that I took with the Good Law Project and other hon. Members.

Gillian Keegan: I said that I would also give way to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western).

Matt Western: That is very kind. I have a lot of time for the Minister, as do other Opposition Members.  Like her, I was a procurement professional. I would not have been allowing this sort of behaviour—the actions of Lord Bethell, in particular—in the organisation for which I used to work, and I am sure that she would not have done so. This is a systemic problem in Government. A Department that I was dealing with, totally unrelated to the pandemic—I will not say who the Minister was—insisted on a meeting without any other representation and then insisted on texting me the information. The Minister should be aware that there is a problem at the heart of Government.

Gillian Keegan: Yes, we are both fellow procurement professionals—from the same industry, indeed. Procurement professionals like us feel very strongly that they would not have behaved to anything but the highest standards. They are highly commercial, highly regulated and highly professional, and they are the people responsible for the contracts.
In closing, I thank colleagues for their contributions—

Chris Elmore: rose—

Gillian Keegan: For their last contributions, I should say—I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Chris Elmore: The Minister is being very generous with her time. She has listed with great vigour all the things the Government have done to try to be transparent and all the things they will do to try to be transparent, so will she confirm to the House which way the Government will be voting on our motion?

Gillian Keegan: The hon. Gentleman may have missed it when I said that we were abstaining.
This is an important debate and I do take this issue very seriously. I am a professional of 30 years’ standing before coming here. My professional reputation is important to me, and I make sure that we uphold the highest standards of professionalism. Make no mistake: it is important to me to get this right. There are facts here, and I have set out the facts correctly. We do not want to play at political games and gimmicks: this is not the right time to do that. It may well play well with audiences on Members’ social media channels, but it is not the right approach.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister has made it clear that the Government are not going to oppose this motion, so we might reasonably expect it to pass. She said on a number of occasions that she will revert to the House with regard to the question of scope. The motion is very detailed on the question of scope, and we anticipate that it will become an instruction to the Government. Can she give an indication of what material her Department, or any Government Department, might hold that would not be disclosed under the terms of this motion?

Gillian Keegan: As I said very clearly, we will set out the scope and set out the documents.
In a spirit of openness and understanding, we need to see how we as a country can rise to meet the challenges of the future. We need to work with people who help to make the difference. This was a very important process. We have vaccinated and tested millions. We should be proud of that. We have built, from virtually nothing, the largest testing centre in Europe. We should be proud of that. Tens of thousands of people are alive today who otherwise may not have been. This Government have moved heaven and earth to get things done. While we continue to approach this serious subject with a willingness to learn, we must also do so with pride as to what has been delivered—pride that when we were needed, we stepped up for our nation when it needed it most.

Brendan O'Hara: This debate may not be a particular pleasure for the Minister, but it is a pleasure to follow her and her valiant attempt at defending the indefensible. Her efforts might have been more credible if her colleagues had done more than abandon her to her fate. Even when the emergency Bat-Signal had gone out from the Whips Office, it seems that this paltry crew is all that could be assembled to support her. It very much looks to us as though that is an admission of guilt by Conservative Members. I was looking forward to hearing their stout defence of their Government, and I can only assume therefore that that stout defence does not actually exist.
I thank and congratulate the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) on the way that she introduced this motion. I put on record our full support for it, because there has to be full transparency about exactly what went on between Owen Paterson when he was a member of this House, representatives of Randox, Lord Bethell, Government Ministers or former Government Ministers, and their special advisers and officials. That full transparency has to include all electronic communications, as well as notes and minutes of meetings between all or some of those parties in relation to the awarding of hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of contracts to Randox Laboratories.

Clive Efford: I tried to intervene on the Minister but she did not give way, so I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The issue about Lord Bethell is not just about his mobile phone. During the period between 1 April and 6 April 2020, he held several meetings with companies that went on to win millions of pounds-worth of covid contracts from the Government, and they were not even in his diary, let alone minuted.

Brendan O'Hara: I absolutely take on board what the hon. Gentleman says, and I am sure the Government have heard it as well. There are many, many questions to be answered, including by Lord Bethell himself.
It is essential that this is done, because a stench of corruption is engulfing this Government, who now stand accused of making certain well-placed individuals fabulously wealthy during this pandemic, not because of their particular skill or acumen in business but primarily because of their political connections to the Conservative party. We should give thanks to Owen Paterson, because it was his behaviour and the bizarre attempt by the Prime Minister, the Tory Chief Whip  and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—albeit at the expense of the reputation of this House and all of us who sit in it—that has finally blown the lid off this scandal once and for all.
It was almost exactly a year ago that the National Audit Office revealed that companies with the right political connections who wanted to supply the UK with personal protective equipment had been directed to a “high priority” channel, purely on the recommendation of a Government Minister, an MP, a Member of the House of Lords or a senior Government official.

Alexander Stafford: Out of 78 contracts awarded to Scottish firms for PPE, 29 were new contracts for £100 million-worth of PPE going to companies that did not have any experience before. Those 29 companies in Scotland with no background in PPE got contracts worth £100 million in Scotland, so what is the difference between that and what happened in the UK? At least Randox had the experience in these things. I am a bit confused—sorry.

Brendan O'Hara: The difference, quite simply, is that we never fast-tracked our pals, we never operated a get- rich-quick scheme for our pals, and we did not stuff unelected second Chambers full of people who bankrolled our party.

Paul Girvan: I represent the constituency where Randox’s headquarters is, and they are a major employer. There are not that many firms or pharmaceutical companies in the United Kingdom that would have had the capacity to deliver the amounts of tests that needed to be done at that time.

Brendan O'Hara: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but what has to be remembered is that nobody is above scrutiny, and if there is nothing to hide they should have nothing to fear. This is all about scrutiny and shining a light where I fear a lot of Conservative Members do not want a light to be shone.

Alexander Stafford: rose—

Brendan O'Hara: No, I will move on.
Once in that “high priority” channel, these companies were 10 times more likely to be successful than companies that did not have links to politicians and senior Government officials, and who were therefore, by definition, “low priority”. In and of itself, the existence of this “high priority” channel is quite remarkable, but the fact that, according to the National Audit Office, the companies referred through this route were considered by the cross-Government PPE team to be somehow more credible and therefore to be treated with more urgency makes this particularly sinister. It turns out that there were no written rules as to how the “high priority” channel should operate, meaning that those companies who had given political support and had access to hundreds of millions of pounds of public funds were not subject to the usual rules of procurement. They could bypass the essential paperwork that would usually be a prerequisite for safeguarding against misuse of public funds and did not even have to go through the anti-corruption checks. It seems, as I said, that it was little more than a get-rich-quick scheme for the Conservatives and their pals.

Matt Western: Beyond being a get-rich-quick scheme, does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that there are longer-term implications about where the data from the testing being done by Randox goes? When I completed a Randox test the other day, I noticed that the system does not seem to fit with the NHS and there is seemingly no data sharing between the Randox tests and the NHS. Does he know more about that?

Brendan O'Hara: Unfortunately not; I thank the hon. Gentleman for highlighting it. I think it is something in the air in which we live, and it is a very important point.
What we are seeing now is crony capitalism at its worst. It stinks, and the closer we get to it, the more it reeks.
I have in the past called for a full and independent investigation into this scandal, and I repeat that call again this afternoon. I believe that the actions of the disgraced former Member for North Shropshire strengthen that case further. As the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said, very serious questions need to be answered. If they are not answered, the reputation of this Government, who seem to be stumbling from one crisis and scandal to another, will be further damaged, but so too will the reputation of this place, the people in it and politics generally. I understand that the Government are desperate for this to go away, but it will not go away until these incredibly serious issues are addressed. I suspect that the Government know that, and they understand that despite this place being full of large carpets, there probably is not one large enough for them to sweep this under. It will not go away and it must be addressed.
We know that between November 2016 and July 2018, Owen Paterson lobbied officials on behalf of Randox, which paid him £100,000 a year to act as its adviser. We also know that in March 2020, Randox Laboratories was awarded a no-bid Government contract worth £133 million. Despite being fast-tracked and essentially handed this multi-million-pound contract, it appears that Randox was not equipped to perform the task it had been given a shedload of public money to do. As The Times reported last week, just days after being given the contract, the company informed officials that they would struggle to carry out enough covid-19 tests without Government help, resulting in the Government sending the Army in to help. In an internal memo seen by The Times, a Government official wrote that the company was
“nervous about having sufficient systems”,
and that the Army was
“on way to Glasgow to pick up”
two machines urgently needed for testing.

Alexander Stafford: Will the hon. Member give way?

Brendan O'Hara: I will come to the hon. Member in a moment.

Stewart McDonald: He can just make a speech.

Brendan O'Hara: That is a very good idea. Perhaps the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) would like to make a speech. The memo seen by The Times  also states that the company feared that it did not “have enough extraction systems” and “was hoping yourselves” —the Government—
“could help us access extraction systems from universities, hospitals anywhere…Any we can get our hands on.”
Crucially, The Times further reported that this memo was written by an official in the Department of Health and Social Care after a phone call on 9 April between Lord Bethell, the Conservative Minister responsible for awarding testing contracts at the time, and Owen Paterson, the Conservative MP who was being handsomely paid by Randox to lobby on its behalf. It appears that the company employing a Conservative MP, which was fast- tracked and awarded a no-bid contract worth £133 million, was actually ill-equipped to provide the vital service it had promised to deliver. This absolutely stinks, and unless and until every record of what was communicated between Mr Paterson, Lord Bethell, Randox, Government officials and special advisers is made public, the stench of corruption will only increase.

Gillian Keegan: I want to be very clear that the contract is published. The contract date is 30 March. The meeting that the hon. Member referred to was on 9 April. The contract was let and published before that meeting.

Brendan O'Hara: Therefore the Minister should have no fears whatever about full disclosure, because that is what the motion asks the Government to do. It is not about selective disclosure; it has to be full disclosure and everything that was said and done among the parties that we have mentioned has to be put in front of this House and open for scrutiny.
The sending in of the Army to help Randox was not the only error or controversy that year. In August 2020, the UK’s medicines regulator had to ask Randox to recall three quarters of a million unused coronavirus testing kits after concerns were raised about safety. By any standards, Randox had not exactly covered itself in glory in the first few months of the contract, so it raises the question as to how six months later it managed to secure another Government contract, this time worth £347 million. That took its total contracts to half a billion pounds in six months. It really has been a bit of a Klondike gold rush for the Northern Ireland-based company that employed a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to lobby the Government on its behalf. As I said in response to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan), who is no longer in his place, everything could be above board and everyone could be beyond reproach, but we deserve to know.
Ironically, Mr Paterson was appointed Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in 2010 by the then Prime Minister David Cameron, who just months before becoming Prime Minister said:
“I believe that secret corporate lobbying…goes to the heart of why people are so fed up with politics. It arouses people’s worst fears and suspicions about how our political system works, with money buying power, power fishing for money and a cosy club at the top making decisions in their own interest. It’s an issue that…has tainted our politics for too long, an issue that exposes the far-too-cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money.”
In the same speech, he said:
“If we win the election, we will take a lead on this issue by making sure that ex-ministers are not allowed to use their contacts and knowledge—gained while being paid by the public to serve the public—for their own private gain.”
He said:
“We can’t go on like this…it’s time we shone the light…on lobbying in our country and forced our politics to come clean about who is buying power and influence.”
As we would say in Glasgow, aye, right, so ye will. Today, David Cameron, that self-styled great reformer, thanks to the Greensill scandal is up to his neck in the same cronyism, corruption and sleaze that he promised to call out and eradicate when in opposition. If it was not so sad, it would be funny.
While many of us very much welcome that Mr Paterson is no longer a Member of this House, the mess he has left behind needs clearing up. Until it is cleared up, the widespread belief that politics in this country is corrupt and this Government are corrupt will not go away. That perception is not helped by the Prime Minister himself deciding to go to Glasgow and stand in front of a hall full of world leaders and feel the need to declare that the United Kingdom is not a corrupt country. Here is the Prime Minister’s chance to do something about it. He can make a start by allowing full transparency over exactly what went on between Owen Paterson when he was a Member of this House, Randox Laboratories, Lord Bethell, Government Ministers past and present and their special advisers. Should he refuse to do that, his performance in Glasgow last week will be seen as one of a Prime Minister who protests too much.

Nigel Mills: I was not planning to speak in this debate, but I have a few remarks I would like to make. As one of the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, I take these kinds of accusations very seriously, and as someone who has served on the Public Accounts Committee, I have done my fair share of time looking at how Government procurement works. There are some very serious questions that need very serious and comprehensive answers, but we have to be pretty generous in spirit to the situation that the Government found themselves in back in March 2020. We had a pandemic of a new virus. We did not have anything like the testing capacity or the PPE in stock that we needed, and we had to try to find solutions to those things quickly. I just do not think it would have been feasible in that situation for every normal process to have been carried out for the Government to have delivered what people had every right to expect them to be trying to deliver. We should look at it generously and not expect to see every i dotted and every t crossed, as we would normally expect.
That is not to say we should expect there to be no process at all, and the Government should have been cognisant that if they were going through a rapid emergency process, there were very great risks that things could go wrong and money could be wasted, with the possibility of overpayments, buying from people who could not deliver, and not ending up with the right amount of stuff. That heightened the risk and should have created more sensitivity around process to ensure that such accusations could not be made retrospectively.
We should have seen the Government try to be as transparent as possible about what happened, what was bought, what was paid and about who introduced who and how. That is where the Government have gone wrong at the end of this process. I can accept that  mistakes were bound to be made at the start. I can probably accept that we probably wasted money, paid too much, paid the wrong people and things went wrong. In the middle of this panic, if I knew someone who I could trust and who I thought could deliver, I may well have pushed them forward more than I would ever normally do. I can accept all that may have happened, but now—we are 18 months on from that point—let us publish everything we feasibly can, and let us be as clear as we possibly can about what happened and why.
I suspect that there is not actually much to see here. I suspect we will find things that are embarrassing and things that went wrong, but I do not think we will find much evidence of corruption. However, if there is any, let us get it out there, see it, deal with the people who did it, get the price of it and then let us move on from this. I do not see why we are trying to hide things now and resisting publication, so I will support this motion if there is a vote later. May I urge the Government, on all the other things and all the other requests, just to publish it and get it out there? I am sure there is nothing to see, and I am not sure how it helps to resist all this now. Let us just do it. When we see a scandal involving a former Member of this House and the same company, it is just not prudent to think that we can not publish everything involved in that. I hope—I sincerely hope—that there is nothing there to see, but let us just be clear about it.
I think my final advice to the Government would be that the only way we will move on from these issues and clear the stench, which I am sure is unfounded, is transparency. Just publish everything, even if it is embarrassing, even if we would not normally do it and even if there were commercial restrictions we would not normally have. I think those are all trumped in this situation because we could not have the normal procedures, but we have to have a different process now. Let us be open, let us publish it and let us move on from all of this.

Tony Lloyd: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), because I think he has tried to play this whole situation with a degree of integrity. The problem for us all is that it simply is not obvious whether that level of integrity has been followed all the way through.
Corruption does matter. The Prime Minister was very interesting at Question Time today when he used the defence of telling the House—and, through the House, the country—that we should not be talking about corruption because that lets our nation down vis-à-vis the rest of the world. The Prime Minister is absolutely wrong: when there is a whiff of corruption, it is vital that we talk about it and vital that we are seen to be working to uncover it. That is the problem we face.
I have no confidence, this House has no confidence, and nor even do Government Members. Government Back Benchers are not here in any numbers. [Interruption.] Many Conservative Back Benchers were not in for the opening speeches—the Opposition Benches were full—because many of them are concerned about this whiff of corruption. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) may want to ask me   to give way, rather than chuntering away from a sedentary position. I am sure what he was saying was very interesting, but it was inaudible and therefore irrelevant.

Alexander Stafford: I am just surprised that the Opposition Benches are empty for an Opposition day debate when so many people claim that they want to discuss the issue. It is your debate. Perhaps you could explain where your Back Benchers are? I am intrigued because your side called it. Do they really care?

Eleanor Laing: Order. Now that the hon. Gentleman has properly intervened and addressed the House not from a sedentary position, I can officially hear him, and I will just make it clear that he should not say “you”. The substance of what he says is not a matter for me, but he should not say “you”.

Alexander Stafford: Apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Eleanor Laing: We have had quite a lot of that today, including during Prime Minister’s questions. Just do not do it. Let us try to keep to the rules.

Tony Lloyd: Quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker. In fact, had you not said that, I would have defended you, in that it is certainly not your debate, except in so far as it belongs to the House and, importantly, to the country, because that is what matters in this issue. It matters that the public have an opportunity to know what went on during this whole saga.
I want to talk briefly about the VIP fast-track situation. In November 2020, I approached Health Ministers about a constituent’s company, Jones & Brooks, which is a printing company that has printed extensively for the national health service. This was at the same time as the VIP fast-track structure was coming in. So good was the VIP fast-track structure for me as an Opposition Member of Parliament that it took me until, I think, July this year to get a proper response, and that was only when I insisted on meeting the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar). To give him credit, once this was brought firmly to his attention—I had done it many times—I got an answer. It was the answer I did not want: my constituent’s company did not get any joy from that exchange. However, what a world of difference there is between companies that can talk to Ministers, be put on a VIP fast track and have the opportunity to be awarded contracts—with or without proper surveillance by those in charge—and those, as in the case of my company, that are given no such consideration.
The Minister for Care and Mental Health has to take that on board because procurement does matter. The opportunity for people to engage in the procurement process matters, because one of the many ways of tilting the weighing scales of life is simply not to allow people even to be in the bidding process. That does matter, and it is the difference between those on the VIP structure and those such as Jones & Brooks and my constituent Ronnie Blair, who were not even allowed to get to the starting blocks. It does matter, because that is actually low-level corruption.
Ronnie Blair, the managing director of Jones & Brooks, offered me no money, and I would not have taken any money anyway. Maybe that is where it goes wrong: if  there is no money changing hands, maybe it does not oil the wheels of procurement. That is an outrageous thing for me to say, and it would be much worse were it true. However, it is true, because we know that Owen Paterson was paid, we know that Owen Paterson broke the lobbying rules and we know that Owen Paterson got access to Ministers, but we do not know what difference getting that access to Ministers made. That is the missing link in this whole sad jigsaw. There are so many things we do not know.
Yes, I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has now moved a long way on this issue. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister, who two weeks ago was trying to cover up this scandal and this saga of corruption, is now in favour of openness. That is good. The Minister told us earlier that the Government would not vote against the Opposition motion today, and again that is genuine process. However, you—not you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the Government—are in the slow learner’s lane on this. The public want to see real alacrity, real commitment and belief that things are going to be sorted out, because we have to get to the bottom of this.
The issue of the noble Lord Bethell is now central. We know that Randox was awarded huge sums of public money—half a billion pounds of public money, which is an enormous amount of money. That may or may not be legitimate vis-à-vis the crisis we faced, but we do know that it failed, with 750,000 tests, to deliver  a product that actually worked. That is enormously important, and it is enormously important to know why, after that experience, we saw another contract being awarded to the same company, which could not do the work.
That matters, and the public need reassurance that that was not as a result of the weighing scales of life being altered unfairly in Randox’s favour. In the end, we are not talking about something trivial; we are talking about public safety and, in the case of covid, public life and death. The wrong tests could give results that led to people dying, so again this is not a trivial matter that we can simply sweep under the carpet, as other hon. Members have said.
The position of noble Lord Bethell is fundamental on this. The Minister told me that she did not know whether his phone calls were minuted by departmental officials. If they were not, that is outrageous. Being in a crisis is no excuse. There was no crisis in the Minister’s office and there was no crisis meaning that a civil servant could not be on the phone call, and that is simply the way things ought to have been done. We need to know whether those calls were minuted. If any call was not minuted, there is a real problem, because we do not know what other calls the noble Lord Bethell engaged in. That matters because there may be some things we shall never know from a noble Lord who is so, shall we say, casual in his acquaintanceship with his telephone. [Laughter.] It really does matter, because while I am grateful to my hon. Friends for laughing, it would be funny if it were not so serious.
The questions that the noble Lord Bethell has to answer are those that the Government have to answer. It is good that the Minister is committed to ensuring that the scope is properly identified, and I welcome what she said. The motion before the House defines that scope, but the commitment that the Government will honour it is fundamental, and if it is not discharged, that would be outrageous. If it is not honoured that will probably  not be the Minister’s decision, but I hope she will take back the message that her reputation is sullied if others refuse to allow this investigation process to be completed.
We have to know what took place. The only way we can give the public confidence in our public life, in politicians, and in public procurement, is if they have a guarantee that when things go right they really have gone right, and that when they go wrong, we will dig and dig until we see what went wrong. We must ensure that those responsible are no longer in that position, and that as far as we can prevent them, such things will never happen again. This situation matters. It is about public money—enormous amounts of public money—but in the end, it is about public wellbeing, life and death.
I suffered from covid. I was in hospital from covid. I saw doctors, nurses and hospital staff of all kinds coming forward when I had covid, and taking the risk that, without proper PPE at the time, I would give it to them. That was early in the whole process, and we may come to the conclusion that such risk was unavoidable. I am very grateful to those who treated me and saved my life, but I am concerned that nobody else should have lost their life because of a dodgy procurement contract. That is why this matters. We have to know.

Kate Hollern: To echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), this matters. Blackburn was hit harder than most areas, so I took a keen interest in what the Government were doing to help ease the situation. In June 2020, I raised with the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care my concerns over Randox tests. Care homes were trying to apply the test, but the swabs were snapping and there was a danger that they could go down an old person’s throat. We found that residents were developing blisters in their mouths.
Similarly to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), at that time the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said to me, “Nothing to see here. It’s fine. There’s no problem with these tests, and we are satisfied with the health and safety standards.” Two weeks later we tried to get tests to replace the banned tests, but we were told that care homes could not have them because none would be available until September. That was disgraceful, and it had a huge impact on elderly and vulnerable people, as well as a huge financial and emotional impact on providers of care within our communities. In July, the Secretary of State admitted that those 750,000 tests had to be withdrawn.
We are talking about contracts and their allocation, and unlike other Members who have spoken, I am not an expert in procurement. However, this statement claims that there were serious shortcomings with the contracts. Documents show that ahead of the 9 April call—I understand that contracts were awarded on 18 May, not in March as the Minister suggested—civil servants in the Department of Health and Social Care were trying to compensate for shortfalls in Randox’s equipment. A clause in the contract said that the Government would
“help them source equipment if they are short or struggling to get it”.
Civil servants confirmed that Randox needed additional equipment for
“loans of the various things we need.”
That was escalated to No. 10, which was told it had to send letters to universities to assist with shortfalls in the equipment. The UK Government had to pay airlines to fly used test kits from England to Northern Ireland, so that Randox could analyse them in the laboratory.
Did that not set alarm bells ringing that there was something wrong with the tests? Why did we award the contract for £133 million? Why did the then Secretary of State for Health say, “Nothing to see here, move on”, only to admit that there was a fault two weeks later? That is bad. I recognise the urgency of getting test kits, and we could excuse some mistakes in the first three months, but to then award another contract six months later when there were still problems, is outright disgraceful. It was putting lives and businesses in Blackburn at risk.
The Minister spoke about the National Audit Office. According to its investigation of Government procurement during the covid-19 pandemic, there were failings to document how risks were considered and were to be managed. There was no competition and a failure to justify why particular suppliers were chosen, or how potential conflicts of interest were identified and managed. What does that say about the objectivity of those Ministers? What does it say about Ministers taking decisions fairly, on merit and openly? These decisions should be taken in an open and transparent manner, with accountability, and Ministers should submit themselves to the scrutiny of the House, not just to ensure that they are held accountable, but so that the people we in this House serve get the service they deserve.
Over the past 20 months, we have learned that these things cost lives. The Government need to move forward from this shameful episode and strengthen not just the standards that we have in this House and must abide by, but the standards of public service. Our constituents deserve better. Blackburn has been devastated by the pandemic, and failings over test and trace have cost financially, emotionally and lives. The Government must be held to account. They must accept their mistakes and publish the detail to learn from those mistakes. They must act to ensure that such mistakes are never allowed to happen again.
I feel exceptionally sorry for the Minister, who has been asked to come here and defend the indefensible. I have been battling with the Department for Health and Social Care since the start of the pandemic and I have never had adequate responses to letters. It has always been, “This is an emergency. We’ll get back to you.” I asked the Secretary of State about the £133 million and how much would be recouped from that failed contract, but I am yet to receive a response. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of this, but Blackburn has a serious shortage of GPs and some of that £133 million —[Interruption.] If she would just pay attention, it would be good. If the Minister would commit to investigating completely—she can use Blackburn as an example of the failings—and to ensuring that she does everything possible to level up some of the unequalness that she has created across east Lancashire, I would be more than happy, but it is important that lessons are learned and actions taken.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to take part in what I think has been one of  the most remarkable debates I have seen since I became a Member of Parliament in 2001. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who has just removed himself from the Chamber, said that he suspects there is not much to see here. I suspect he is probably right about that. But when we hear the concession from the Minister at the Dispatch Box that no record was taken of the telephone conference call involving Lord Bethell and Owen Paterson, and when we hear the somewhat improbable history outlined by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) about the relationship between Lord Bethell and his various mobile phones, suspicious minds such as mine—and probably even worse—will ask why it would be that there is nothing much here to see.

Gillian Keegan: I just want to make clear what I said. We have been unable to locate a formal note of the meeting—that is what I have been told so far. That does not mean there isn’t one. We have been unable to locate one, but of course everything we have will be put in the Library.

Alistair Carmichael: That is, indeed, an important distinction. I wonder whether the search for these minutes has extended as far as the shredding room. I say to the Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), who will wind up the debate, that it would be helpful if the House could be told how many other documents might be within the purview of the specification outlined in the motion. That is, how many are similarly difficult to locate?
I caution those on the Treasury Bench that saying that documents and text messages and WhatsApp messages on Ministers’ phones cannot be found only lasts so long as a defence. A full inquiry is coming and the longer that somewhat less than substantial defences are thrown up, and the more dust is kicked up, the worse it will be for Government Ministers at the end of the day. If the information is there, with the knowledge and control of any Government Department, it should be disclosed under the terms of the motion, which the House is going to agree to.
The Minister said a number of times, including when I challenged her, that the Government would define the scope. With respect to her, the Government will not define the scope; it is the House that will define the scope, which has been very clearly laid out in the motion. I do not see what justification or excuse there could be, given the fairly careful construction of the motion, for not disclosing information. More important than that, even if there is a tiny loophole it is a question of doing the right thing and being seen to honour not just the letter but the spirit of the motion, which the House will pass later. That is why, to quote David Cameron again, sunlight is the best disinfectant. We need to have the fullest possible disclosure.

Tony Lloyd: This is a convenient time for me to intervene because that is the point I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, ministerial meetings are always minuted, but if documents are missing, what will the public believe if they find out that meetings have not been minuted? Even if it turns out in reality—in God’s time—that nothing bad happened, the public will, rightly, still believe that somebody is trying to pull  the wool over their eyes. Put simply, that is part of the distrust in politicians and in Government. We have to clear it up and ensure that we re-establish our reputation.

Alistair Carmichael: One can only imagine what the public might believe in these circumstances. I fear that it may not be generous. Actually, you know what? It does not just reflect badly on the Government; it reflects badly on all of us in public life. That is why the way in which the Government have approached this whole matter since that dreadful vote two weeks ago has done so much damage to the standing of public life.
I know a bit about this issue because I spent the early years of my legal practice as a member of the civil service. I did my traineeship as a procurator fiscal depute at the Crown Office back in the dark days of the 1990s. We kept everything—we minuted everything—and when we had finished a meeting, we filed the minutes. Those pieces of paper sat in filing cabinets and archives for 30 years or however long it took, at which point they were taken out and put into the public domain. What that process of preparing files for publication taught me was that not everybody in the public service was always very careful in the way in which they filed pieces of paper. Anybody who has ever been in legal practice will know that occasionally papers for one client get mixed with papers for another.
As I say, that was back in the dark ages. I suspect that the notes prepared these days are not handwritten in fountain pens on little pieces of paper. There will be electronic records of them, and those electronic records are virtually impossible to destroy. That is why the question of documents being difficult to find stretches my credulity.
We all have respect for the Minister. When she started her speech, the only Government Members present were two Ministers, two Parliamentary Private Secretaries, a Whip and the hon. Member for Amber Valley. As I have said, I have never seen the House so poorly populated for a debate like this. Indeed, I have to say that I have never seen the civil service Box as thinly populated as it is today. That in itself is quite telling, because it comes back to the way in which the Government approach  the issue. The most powerful people in any Parliament are Government Back Benchers, because they have the opportunity to defeat the Government. Anybody who has ever served in a Whips Office knows that. It is welcome that the Government will not contest the motion, but I am still worried about the lack of enthusiasm among Government Members for extracting maximum possible disclosure.
In her speech, the Minister outlined, quite properly and legitimately, the various significant achievements, including the vaccine roll-out. She reminded us of the situation in which we found ourselves in March 2020, when we did not really know what the future held. As the hon. Member for Amber Valley said, we would not have expected every i to be dotted and ever t to be crossed. However, at that point we all gave a significant amount of power to the Government. This House passed the Coronavirus Act 2020, which gives massive amounts of latitude to the Government, because we all felt it necessary to give them the powers to do what was needed in a situation where nobody knew what the future held. What I fear has not been properly understood is that, with those powers, we gave the Government  a responsibility, but they and many of those around Government seem to have seen it not so much as a responsibility as an opportunity for enrichment. I say to the Minister and to all her colleagues that that attitude is at the heart of the problem and is, essentially, an abuse of the powers that we gave them when we passed that emergency legislation in March 2020. That is why the motion is so important.
Like every other Member in this House, I frequently sit down with businesses in my constituency and will help them, if possible, to get rid of penalties. That includes people charged for a late VAT return and farmers penalised in a draconian manner for making a minor and unintentional error in their claim for an agricultural support payment. Sometimes we are able to help them; sometimes we have to just shrug our shoulders after we have tried and say, “I’m really sorry, I tried but these are the rules.” Those constituents will only ever listen to me deliver that message again if they can be satisfied that the rules that so adversely affect them also apply to everybody else. The real damage that the Government seek to do in the way they have handled these matters is that they will never again be able to tell other people that they should not be held to the same standard.

Owen Thompson: I do not intend to detain the House for long. Many of the main issues of focus have been discussed. Looking at the state that this Government have got themselves into, we could be forgiven for thinking that we are somewhere towards a descent into a kakistocracy, because this is a Government of the least able—the very worst that a society has to offer. If those in power abusing that power for private and personal gain does not represent the worst of society, I do not know what does.
Let us remind ourselves of the content of the misconduct, because we have seen parts of it before: lobbying for the awarding of contracts through an exclusive VIP channel without competition or transparency, a channel where one in 10 offers were successful compared with just 0.7% through the normal channels. It is the same process that locked tens of thousands of experienced suppliers out of the procurement process for lifesaving equipment, in favour of the likes of jewellery companies, vermin control companies and the then Health Secretary’s pub landlord.
I have lost count of how many times we have been here before. What we are discussing today is one part of a bigger trend, a culture that does not see any value in transparency and openness. In a debate where many had hoped for greater transparency, I think we have actually seen a bit more muddying of the waters from those on the Government Benches. It is worth saying—forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the plug, even though the time for it has passed—but if the Government had actually supported my Ministerial Interests (Emergency Powers) Bill last year, we could have been in a much more open place today. Instead, the Government have been dragged kicking and screaming to reveal what companies have benefited from this kind of corruption—that is what it is, at the bottom—from the £20.3 million going to Tim Horlick of Ayanda Capital to the £45.7 million going to Banks Bourne of Tanner Pharma. Fat cats benefit from corruption and it is transparency that stamps it out.

Alexander Stafford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Owen Thompson: Yes, please.

Alexander Stafford: If the hon. Gentleman is using that definition of corruption, does it apply to the  £500 million-worth of contracts given out by the SNP Government in Scotland to companies without any competition? I am confused. On the one hand, the SNP Government in Scotland are giving out half a billion pounds-worth of contracts without any competition, but on the other hand the UK Government are doing something similar and that is corrupt. Either they are both corrupt or neither are corrupt—I am a bit confused.

Owen Thompson: I am eternally grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. He tried to make exactly the same point before and I think that this was pointed out to him. The key difference—the Minister herself said this—is that in a global pandemic steps need to be taken and everybody recognised that steps needed to be taken that are not necessarily in line with the normal process, but the UK Government employed a VIP lane open to Government Ministers and members of the Government party that was not open to anybody else. Contracts were handed out through personal contacts, WhatsApp exchanges and paid lobbyists for companies. That is the key fundamental difference here and I am so grateful that the hon. Gentleman gave me a chance to again highlight that point. [Interruption.] If he wants to try again, I am more than happy. [Interruption.] Okay.
It is very easy to get wrapped up in the day-to-day melodrama of this saga, but it is important to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. The real scandal is not that a couple of bad eggs broke the rules; it is that the system either consistently enables rule-breaking or completely lacks rules against this kind of behaviour. For instance, take the fact that the Government were completely within their constitutional rights to retro- spectively change the rules to let Owen Paterson off the hook. In what other system would that be acceptable? The system of government here works to enable corruption, not to constrain it, precisely because it gives the Government a blank check to make up the rules as they go along. The absence of a written constitution to constrain Governments means that this can keep happening over and over again, as it did in the ‘90s and ‘00s. If they do not like the rules that are currently there, they can just rip them up and put in new ones.
So the problem here is not bad eggs, it is the system. It is the fact that no UK Government can ever be accountable to anything but themselves. Parliamentary supremacy means that any Government can override past decisions. They can rewrite the rules to their own liking. It is no wonder that Brexiteers obsessed over it in 2016, because it is what has given them the green light to conduct themselves in the ways we are discussing today. The only thing that can ever constrain a Government is political pressure, which thankfully in this situation has worked, but that is an awfie shoogly peg to base your system of government on.
For that reason, this is not the first time that corruption has reared its ugly head in this place. Sadly, I doubt it will be the last time either. The very way that this Parliament is set up lends itself to allowing this to happen. If we do not change it, nothing will change it. I am under no illusion that this scandal will lead to some  dramatic new system of government rising from the ashes like a phoenix—I cannot see it—but that is on the table in Scotland. Independence means we could have a written constitution that can guarantee in law that Governments are held accountable and transparency is guaranteed.
Openness and transparency benefits all of us in this place. It is in all of our interests to make sure that that is at the top of the agenda. Our constituents demand that and it should be our duty to make sure that they get that. Public servants should be here to represent their communities, not to line their pockets. Sadly, the lining of pockets has far too often recently been what has been on the table.

Dawn Butler: I think we all agree that the Minister today has been given a hard gig, coming to the Chamber today. I hope she will not allow the Government’s approach to ruin her good reputation.
I want to pick up on some of the points the Minister mentioned in her contribution to the House today. She spoke about the National Audit Office. Let me be clear about what it actually said. It said that not all the paperwork it needed was present to enable it to follow the trail of contracts that had been issued. That means that the NAO did not have the information it needed to give a full and correct report.
Let me give the House an example of some of the companies given contracts. They say “awarded”, but really, if there is no other competition, they are just given it. Topham Guerin is one such company. The company worked for the Tory party during the 2019 general election. An independent body found that 88% of its adverts between 1 December and 4 December contained misleading information. One might think that that would preclude it from being given a contract, right? If a company had been found to have produced information that was 88% misleading, we might think it would not be seen anywhere near Government. But no. Instead, it was “awarded” a £3 million contract and attended meetings at No. 10. When I asked the then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), about it in the Science and Technology Committee, he could not tell me what on earth it did. It got that money and was then awarded another contract on top of that.
The NAO also said in its report that a company was put into the VIP lane by mistake. A company was put into this magical VIP lane by mistake. One would have thought that that mistake would have been found, but no. That company—a company that was put into the VIP lane by mistake—went on to get a £350 million contract. That is why we need transparency. At the end of the day, people outside this place are asking questions about what is going on inside it. They do not understand it, I do not understand it, and there are people in the Government who are trying to hide what is happening.
There are civil servants who have been at their wits’ end. They have whistleblown. The NAO report cites civil servants who raised concerns all the way through the procurement process, asking why we were paying over the odds for PPE. Even at the higher rate, we were paying over the odds for it.
Questions were raised about Samir Jassal, who is  a friend of the Home Secretary. He was acting as a middleman, writing emails to the then Health Secretary  saying, “Hey Matt, you’ve been most helpful previously”—very, very familiar. He went on to get some money for a company, which went from being valued at £200 to £10 million.
There are serious questions to be answered. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) said earlier, we either have to clean up or cover up. I hope that this is the beginning of a process to clean up.
I agree with those people who say that we have to learn the lessons. In the beginning of the pandemic—in January last year—a lot was being thrown at us, but by September 2020, we knew better. On 17 September 2020, in the Science and Technology Committee, I asked why we gave a £133 million testing contract, unopposed, to Randox when it disposed of more than 12,000 used swabs in a single day and voided more than 35,000 used test kits in a few months. Not only did the company do that, but it had the cheek to charge us for it. It threw away some of the tests—it did not do those tests—and then it charged us for that, so we were still paying for all its mistakes. How is that good business—this is basic—and how is that good procurement? How is that a good contract? It just is not. It is wrong and, frankly, it is corrupt. Baroness Harding said that she could not “confirm or deny” what happened. Again, that speaks volumes.
Randox employed the former MP, Owen Paterson, on over £500 an hour. When I asked Baroness Harding what he did, she said:
“I am afraid you would have to ask Owen Paterson rather than me.”
He was not going to tell me, and she was not going to tell me, but I sure know that the Government should be able to tell me, because at the end of the day, as we said earlier—he was a former Minister in Government—every single meeting should have been logged. There should be minutes of those meetings and they should be made public.
We are way down the road now. This Government were obsessed with centralisation, as opposed to decentralisation. We knew very early on that a local approach was better and was producing results in the 24 hours that we needed them in to help us to stem the pandemic, yet the Government were still obsessed with a centralised approach because they could hide behind the cloak of the pandemic. They could make sure that their mates got money and that the companies were given contracts that they were not suitable for. A company in my constituency, Medical Diagnosis Ltd, was not even given a look-in to provide any of the services. Local GPs and local pharmacies all wanted to be involved but they could not be because the Government were obsessed with a centralised system where they could hide behind the cloak of the pandemic. The time for hiding has come to an end.

Anneliese Dodds: This is a vital moment for everyone who cares about democracy, transparency, stemming the waste and abuse of public money and improving the way that our country responds to future crises. I find it extraordinary that, on a matter of such national significance, there was not a single Conservative Member on the list to speak during this debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield  (Mr Sheerman) damningly stated, this was the worst such situation that he had seen since he came into Parliament in 1979, when I was at the very tender age of just one year old.
Let us recall the reasons why we are here today. Randox paid Owen Paterson over £8,000 a month to lobby on its behalf. Mr Paterson then sat in on a call between Randox and Lord Bethell, the Health Minister responsible for handing out Government contracts, and Randox landed Government contracts worth more than half a billion pounds without any kind of proper tender process. There was no competition, just deals done behind closed doors, with discussions between a Government Minister, a Conservative MP and the company paying him handsomely to hawk its wares around the corridors of power. That tells us everything we need to know about how this Conservative Government go about their business.
But the situation with Randox is even more disturbing because of what happened next, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) set out very ably. After pocketing £133 million of public money to carry out covid testing, Randox failed to deliver, so in the middle of an unprecedented national crisis, we witnessed an unedifying spectacle: the Health Secretary sending the begging bowl around our universities asking to borrow equipment, just so Randox could deliver what it promised.
I echo what so many Opposition Members have said: the Minister has a very positive reputation on this side of the House, but my word, she has been given a hospital pass today. I regret that the hole in which she was placed has become larger, rather than smaller, during this debate.

Dawn Butler: There was a point about Randox that I neglected to mention. Is it not true that it failed to meet every single target that it was set, and yet, it was still awarded another contract six months later? That is unbelievable.

Anneliese Dodds: Many thanks to my hon. Friend; she is absolutely right that we have seen failure upon failure upon failure to meet the targets that were set, as she knows very well from her experience in this place and her focus on health matters. I find it extraordinary that the process of the Health Secretary having to call on others so that Randox could deliver what it had promised was described as an example of the “triple helix”. I remember those days very well. I remember academics begging the Government to come to them because they said that they could deliver the testing that our country needed. Were they listened to? We all know what happened: they were not listened to—they were ignored when our country needed that testing. This was an example not of collaboration, but of outsourcing that failed spectacularly on the Conservatives’ watch.

Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. One of the real questions relates to the fact that the Minister told us that those involved in procurement were not constrained whatever by Government and Ministers’ actions. I know not whether that is absolutely accurate or not—we have to find out—but, in any case, did not the procurement process fail at precisely the point at which there was no examination of Randox’s capacity to deliver what it said it would? That is not clever procurement.

Anneliese Dodds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the concrete impact of these failures and that procurement system. I will come to those matters, which he detailed very ably in the important speech he made a few minutes ago.
Again, the Minister maintained that all details of contracts are published. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) set out, the Conservative Government were taken to court and found to have acted unlawfully because of their determination not to provide transparency over contracts. There is, again, a rewriting of history. What else did we see at that time? We saw the Conservative Government paying airlines to fly kits out to Randox’s laboratory in Northern Ireland for them to be analysed. We saw the Health Secretary warning people not to use Randox testing kits because they were “not up to standard”. In the end, Randox had to recall 750,000 tests because they were not good enough, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) rightly explained. It threw away more than 12,000 swabs in a single day because they had to be voided.
The Minister said that we should “pause and reflect” on what happened. Many of us have been pausing and reflecting, and we have been remembering what happened. Let us cast our minds back to the beginning of the pandemic. We remember when our country faced that nationwide testing shortage as the devastation of covid ripped through our communities. We remember when people were scared, when they were sick, when they were dying. We remember when, in Plymouth, people were told that their nearest testing centre was in Inverness. We remember when, in Bolton, at the epicentre of the pandemic, people could not access any testing at all. We remember, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) set out devastatingly, when care homes could not access the testing that they needed for elderly and vulnerable people. We remember the impact that that had.
The stakes could not have been higher. Lives depended on the Government securing the best possible testing contract. Almost 40,000 people died in care homes in the year after Owen Paterson’s phone call with Lord Bethell and Randox—care homes that took in people from hospital who had not been tested at all, and care homes whose own staff and residents could not access the tests that they needed until nearly two months after the national lockdown began, by which point it was  too late. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) said, we have to know whether this contracting played a role in those awful, awful outcomes.
How did the Government respond to their abject failures to deliver? Did they learn the lessons when new contracts came up, such as a contract for testing twice as lucrative as the previous one? Of course not. They doubled down—and Randox doubled up with a brand-new deal. Again, there was no competition; again, it was behind closed doors. Another £350 million of public money was dropped in the lap of a firm that just so happened to have a Conservative MP and former Secretary of State on its payroll.
The Minister has attempted to dispute that course of events. I say to her: prove it. Publish every dot and comma related to those deals: every email, every message, every letter between Ministers, special advisers and MPs. Explain why Lord Bethell’s WhatsApp messages  have been lost as part of the sorry saga that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne detailed, which is the 21st-century equivalent of “the dog ate my homework.” Come on! It is ridiculous.
Will the Minister please explain what on earth is going on with the minutes of the phone call with Lord Bethell and Paterson? We seem to have had mixed messages during the debate. At one point, it seemed that it was being suggested that there were no minutes—they never existed. That, in and of itself, raises extremely important questions. Were there no minutes of a meeting relating to two contracts worth £500 million of taxpayers’ money? It was then suggested, “Oh, it’s not that we necessarily know that there were no minutes, or that they were destroyed. No, we are unable to locate those minutes.” Well, when will they be located? They need to be located.
If the Department of Health and Social Care has been unable to locate the minutes, why has it been stating that it is not able to respond in a timely manner to freedom of information requests about the matter, without stating that that was because it believes that the minutes might not exist, that it has been unable to locate them, or whatever? Instead, it has just said that it is trying to respond to those FOIs. My goodness, what a mess.
Will the Minister explain how many other meetings might not have been minuted? How many other meetings might have minutes, but nobody knows where? When will we see them? Will she explain why the Government are so resistant to letting sunlight be the disinfectant that it needs to be in this process? As the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) said: just publish them.
We are talking today about one specific contract, but we all know that the problem does not begin and end with Randox. This is a Government who rolled out the red carpet for many more companies with close links to senior Conservatives. Just yesterday we learned that, of the 47 firms that won contracts via the so-called VIP lane that so many Opposition Members have referred to, four were helped by a former Conservative chair, four by the former Health Secretary and one by Dominic Cummings. I regret the fact that the Minister has stated that
“Ministers have no role…in the procurement process”.
That was not the case with the VIP lane, was it? We know that now, in black and white. The Minister has the opportunity to intervene if Ministers played no role in that VIP lane. She cannot intervene, because she knows that Ministers, including her Health Secretary, were recommending those companies.

Gillian Keegan: I thank the hon. Lady for the opportunity to intervene. I think the difference is that the VIP lane is about the identification of potential sources of supply. The procurement process starts after that; that is when procurement professionals, who are highly regulated, take over.

Anneliese Dodds: The Minister is obviously doing her very best, but yet again, I am afraid that this is not an edifying spectacle. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the recommendation led to companies receiving enormously expensive contracts. It is risible to suggest  anything less. It is also risible to suggest that in those cases the Government followed their own emergency procurement guidance:
“Contracting authorities should maintain documentation on how they have considered and managed potential conflicts of interest in the procurement process…Particular attention should be taken to ensure…decisions are being made on the basis of relevant considerations and”—
wait for it—
“not personal recommendations.”
There was nothing inevitable about this. I know how things ran in Labour-run Wales, and they did not run like this.
We have seen that companies with links to the Conservative party were 10 times more likely to secure a contract than others. Public money was doled out based not on a company’s abilities but on its contacts book. When it comes to spending taxpayers’ money on testing and PPE equipment that can save lives, one would hope that the Government would take things more seriously, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle) said, the switch into an emergency process provides no justification for the ransacking of public money we have seen. As the hon. Member for Amber Valley said, an emergency situation was not a reason for having no process at all. In practice, there should have been more sensitivity around the process, not less.
Because of the Government’s approach, British businesses that did not have Tory MPs on speed dial missed out.

Karl Turner: I know that the Minister has not managed to answer the question that I posed earlier, but Arco, in the city of Hull, had existed for 135 years, had provided top-quality products to the NHS since its very inception, and could not get on the VIP lane. Why was it blocked?

Anneliese Dodds: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Earlier in the debate, he detailed that sorry tale in devastating manner, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy). Arco had existed for 135 years, providing essential material. It was completely ignored, yet Ayanda Capital, for example—an investment firm with no PPE experience —ended up being used by the Government to purchase 50 million masks that were not even usable.
There were other companies that missed out. Multibrands International, based in Bradford, had been providing PPE to the Chinese Government since the end of 2019. It spent months trying to offer those services to the UK Government, but got absolutely nowhere. What did the Government do instead? They bought 400,000 protective gowns from Turkey that were unusable.
That is the way it always seems to be with the Conservative party: one rule for the Conservatives and their friends, another rule for everyone else—and it is the British people who pay the price. This Conservative Government are doing their best to suggest that every politician was engaged in graft. They are trying to drag everyone else down to their level and feed a growing disillusionment with our politics that damages us all. But Labour Members know that that is not true; I suspect that a fair few Conservative Members know it, too.
The people of Britain know when they are being taken for fools. When a party found guilty of breaking the rules tries to remake them to protect one of its own,  there is a word for that: corruption. That is what this Prime Minister has brought into the heart of our politics, and the British people will not tolerate it. That is why the Prime Minister panicked last week and U-turned: because he knew that he had been rumbled.
We all have to play by the same rules, whatever the Prime Minister thinks. Labour has been clear that if we were in power, things would change. We would ban dodgy second jobs like those of the former Member for North Shropshire—and I mean a proper ban, not the watered-down cop-out that the Prime Minister is trying to lay down this afternoon. We would close the revolving door and ban Ministers from lobbying for at least five years after they leave office. We would stop Conservative plans to allow foreign money to flow into our politics, and ban the use of shell companies to hide the source of donations. We would create a new office for value for money and reform procurement rules to put an end to the industrial-scale wasting of public money, and we would create a new, genuinely independent integrity and ethics commission to restore the standards in public life that have been trashed by this Government.
This scandal has presented a clear choice about the kind of politics we want for our country. Do we want Boris Johnson’s politics of the gutter, or Keir Starmer’s politics of decency and integrity? Conservative Members have a choice today as well. They can abstain, under orders from the Prime Minister, their Chief Whip and the Leader of the House; or they can decide to make a stand. They can decide that they want to have a vote on this because they want to take a better path. Let us be very clear about the message that abstention is going to send. We have heard weasel words during this debate, and it seems clear that the scope of what the Government are proposing today, in terms of what they are willing to release, is far less than what Labour’s motion requires.
I see the Minister shaking her head. I sincerely hope that she has got that correct, because, having listened to what she said and compared it with what is written in the Labour motion, I think that there is far less that this Government are prepared to reveal.

Gillian Keegan: I said that we would advise on the scope, and, as the right hon. Member for Orkney  and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) pointed out, it could  be discussed. I have not yet commented on the scope because I do not yet have the details.

Anneliese Dodds: I hoped that the Minister might say at this stage, “Yes, absolutely—we will follow what Labour has called for. We will make sure that those documents are published; we will make sure that the minutes of meetings are set out.” Instead, she seems to have muddied the waters. I do not mean to be unfair to her, but that is what her response has done for me.

Gillian Keegan: rose—

Anneliese Dodds: I shall be happy if the Minister can clarify that.

Gillian Keegan: I do not want to appear to muddy  the waters by not saying what the scope is. What we  have said is that we will publish the documents and place them in the House Library. I am sure that the scope will be as broad as would be expected, to satisfy the hon. Lady.

Anneliese Dodds: Of course, the way to guarantee that the scope will have the breadth that is required would be to have the binding vote in the House of Commons for which Labour is calling right now.
As the Minister knows, we have been here before, with promises being made about what the Government will be transparent about and what, in practice, they are willing to deliver, which far too often is far, far less. We have the chance now to move beyond that cover-up, and instead have the clean-up to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne referred. We have the chance to make amends. The Government have the chance. They can also immediately accept all outstanding freedom of information requests in relation to all PPE and testing contracts, and they can publish all documents and correspondence relating to the £3.5 billion-worth of contracts that have gone to Tory donors and Tory-linked companies.
Let us make that choice now: let us clear this up once and for all.

Maggie Throup: I am pleased to be able to close this debate on behalf of the Government. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Care and Mental Health said earlier, the Government are not intending to vote against the Humble Address. We will review what information we hold in scope, come back to Parliament and deposit it in the Library of the House, which is in line with the Government’s established stance on responding to Humble Addresses.
I am, however, grateful for the opportunity that we have had to address the important issues raised today: questions of how, as a country, we can rise and meet the challenges that we face, how we can ensure we have a system that is not only fast but fair, and how we can learn lessons from this most challenging period in our history. One of the most important lessons I take from it is that when we work together, we can do incredible things. We can build a testing capacity almost from scratch, we can reach millions of people in a single day, and we can save lives on a massive scale. Imagine what would have happened had we not worked with so many incredible partners to deliver these efforts—because no one can do it on their own, especially in such unprecedented circumstances, so it is the duty of a responsible Government to work with anyone who can deliver. The NHS has been phenomenal, our hospitals have been phenomenal and local government has have been phenomenal, but so have those in the private sector. We could not have come this far without them.
When we look at the situation today, it is easy to forget just how far we have come.
Back in March 2020, we could process just a few thousands of tests in a day; now we can process millions. That we have achieved this is no accident. In respect of developments from testing kits to processing, logistics to lateral flow devices, those partnerships between the NHS, industry, academia, local government and so many others have made the difference—and contracts with companies such as Randox have been some of the essential building blocks without which we would never have built what is now one of the largest testing networks in the world.
Randox laboratories have carried out over 15 million tests for covid-19. More than 730,000 positive cases have been identified under Randox contracts, which meant that those people could self-isolate, protect others, and help to bring the pandemic under control. An independent assessment gave a positive assessment of Randox’s performance. It exceeded their contract targets, hitting 120,000 tests in a single day in March 2021.

Karl Turner: Would the Minister like to comment on the fact that 750,000 testing kits that were put into care homes were no good at all? What has she to say about that?

Maggie Throup: In a statement on 18 July 2020, the Secretary of State informed the House that a batch of swab test kits were not up to the usual high standard. As a precautionary measure, they were withdrawn, and replacement kits were supplied as soon as possible.

Tony Lloyd: The Minister is making a case for the partnership among our universities, our health service and the private sector. She has spent some time praising Randox, whose coffers were stuffed with money. Does she think it would be a good idea to stuff our university research facilities and our NHS testing labs with the same amount of money?

Maggie Throup: I visited Nottingham University recently to see the amazing work being done there. Obviously, continued support for our universities is imperative. I know that they do amazing work, as do our hospital laboratories.
We should celebrate these achievements, not criticise them. I want to reassure the House that there have always been strong safeguards behind these contracts, and that they are awarded in accordance with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015. We monitor all contracts and suppliers closely, as would be expected. We judge them against key performance indicators, and we publish contract award notices for all the contracts awarded to provide test and trace services, consistent with the regulatory requirements.

Dawn Butler: It seems as though the Minister may have missed the whole debate and just come in at the end, because she has failed to take up some of the conversations that we have had during the debate. Can she confirm that the public did not pay for the test kits that Randox threw away?

Maggie Throup: Obviously those details were in the contracts, but I am sure that they conformed with the key performance indicators.
All the contract award notices can be seen on Contracts Finder. We have nothing to hide, Madam Deputy Speaker —nothing at all. The House, and the public, can see what taxpayers’ money has been spent on. We have applied exactly the same criteria, standards and processes in the case of Randox as we have in all other cases. Randox has never been an exception, and we utterly reject the idea that it has received any kind of special treatment. Our partnership with Randox is simply a reflection of the situation in which we found ourselves in March 2020, facing a global pandemic of unknown and unprecedented proportions and acting as a responsible Government should. We worked against genuine fears that we would run out of vital testing equipment, that  we would not have the capacity to test people and that the deadly virus might continue to spread from person to person, silent and undetected.
We engaged with Randox and many others. Not only was Randox a UK-based business, but its early laboratory-based PCR testing capacity for covid-19 was capacity that we have been able to use for the whole of the UK. We have fought this pandemic as one United Kingdom. Working with Randox was the right thing to do, it was the responsible thing to do and, quite simply, it was a decision that has saved many thousands of lives.
I will address one issue brought up by a couple of Opposition Members, and reassure them that Arco was awarded contracts for PPE. I thank Arco for its contribution in providing life-saving PPE that we needed at that time.

Karl Turner: The reality is that Arco went directly to various NHS branches to offer its services to supply. It was blocked from any formal route. It was not on the VIP list. That is the reality.

Maggie Throup: I reiterate that Arco was awarded contracts for PPE.
Of course, that does not mean there are no lessons to be learned, and I can reassure the hon. Member for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) that the public inquiry will be an important learning moment for us all. We are already making changes: we published our procurement Green Paper last December, we updated our commercial guidance on the management of actual and perceived conflicts of interest in May, and we are implementing the recommendations from the first and second Boardman reviews into improving procurement.
The real lessons, however, are just what we can achieve when we all get behind a shared mission, to protect the British people and to protect the NHS. That is a mission-driven way of working that has seen us work beyond the traditional boundaries and achieve remarkable results. We have tested millions of people for covid-19 and kept millions more safe. I am very proud of that, and so too, I believe, are the British people.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House the minutes from or any notes of the meeting of 9 April 2020 between Lord Bethell, Owen Paterson and Randox representatives, and all correspondence, including submissions and electronic communications, addressed or copied to, or written by or on behalf of, any or all of the following:
(a) a Minister or former Minister of the Crown,
(b) a Special Adviser of such a Minister or former Minister, or
(c) a Member or former Member of this House
relating to the Government contracts for services provided by medical laboratories, awarded to Randox Laboratories Ltd. by the Department for Health and Social Care, reference tender_237869/856165 and CF-0053400D0O000000rwimUAA1, valued at £133,000,000 and £334,300,000-£346,500,000 respectively.

Royal Assent

Eleanor Laing: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021
Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Act 2021.

Strengthening Standards in Public Life

Eleanor Laing: I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Thangam Debbonaire: I beg to move,
That this House:
(1) endorses the 2018 recommendation from the Committee on Standards in Public Life that Members should be banned from any paid work to provide services as a Parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant;
(2) instructs the Committee on Standards to draw up proposals to implement this and to report by 31 January 2022; and
(3) orders that on the expiry of fifteen sitting days from the date on which the Committee makes its report to the House, if  no debate has been held on a substantive motion relating to recommendations in that report, the Speaker shall give precedence to a substantive motion on the recommendations in that report tabled thereafter by any Member.
At the risk of repeating myself—unfortunately, it seems I must—standards in public life are fundamental to our democracy. I have reminded the Leader of the House several times over the past few weeks what those standards are, and I will do so again, just to make sure that he and his colleagues have taken them in. They are, of course, the Nolan principles of public life, and there are seven of them: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. We should all aspire to them and cherish them, as I said yesterday.
I urge all hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider those principles when they make their decision on which Division Lobby to walk through later this afternoon, because those values must underpin all that we do in this House and on behalf of our constituents outside this House. It is our constituents and the country that we serve, not private interests. We are not paid MPs for hire.
Over the past two weeks, I am afraid to say—it gives me no pleasure—that we have seen some of the very worst of some on the Government Benches. That has included refusing to deal with one of their own MPs found guilty of sexual harassment and then trying to change the rules on standards to protect one of their mates who had broken the rules. That leaves the reputation of Parliament and our precious democracy in danger of disrepute. The Prime Minister had to publicly decree last week that the UK is not a “corrupt country”.

Angus MacNeil: On that point about the UK’s being a corrupt country and standards in public life, in 2006 we knew that peerages for £1 million were finding Labour party people going to the House of Lords. The coincidence is that now Tories with £3 million get into the House of Lords. Lord Oakeshott of the Liberals said in 2014 that he bemoaned the fact that he had not ended the practice when he left. Does the hon. Lady think that all party leaders of those parties that are putting people into the House of Lords should cap the donation level at £50,000, as suggested in the amendment I tabled, so that there can be no more sniff or smell of corruption in the UK with cash for peerages continuing?

Thangam Debbonaire: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I must say the difference between this party and the Government party is that we are trying to do something about this. We have the proposals to do something about it. When we were in Government, as I will come on to in my remarks, we did a great deal to try to reform the House of Lords, and we made a lot of progress. On corruption and sleaze, we in the Opposition are the ones trying to change the system for the better.

Dawn Butler: While we are talking about corruption and sleaze, and Ministers and standards, does my hon. Friend, like me, find it rather strange that the Prime Minister is in charge of the ministerial code and gets to decide whether somebody has broken it?

Thangam Debbonaire: Yes; I am glad that my hon. Friend brought that up, because the Opposition have a problem with that. We have a problem with the fact that it is up to the Prime Minister to decide whether or not the ministerial code is investigated. That is a problem. As I said yesterday, the Government rejected the report put forward by the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards—a report that followed a very thorough investigation, undertaken entirely properly, with due consideration for the circumstances of the former Member for North Shropshire. That was wrong.
The Government then tried to overthrow the entire standards system, ripping up a 30-year consensus on how we enforce standards in this place, just to prevent sanctions on an “egregious case”—not my words, but those of the entire Committee on Standards—of paid lobbying. That was wrong. Cabinet Ministers then suggested that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should resign. That was wrong. They tried to set up a sham committee with a named chair, notably on the Government side, and a majority of members from the Government side, to rig the standards procedure. That was wrong.
Okay, the Government are now belatedly trying to right those wrongs. The commissioner finally got an apology from the Business Secretary on Monday for his shameful comments.

Rupa Huq: Does my hon. Friend agree that this latest inconsistency, along with the eastern leg of HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail, no rise in national insurance, no border down the Irish sea, oven-ready deals and the 0.7% commitment to overseas aid, shows that the Government must be wearing out their clutch and gearstick with the amount of U-turns they make—making us all dizzy?

Eleanor Laing: Order. Let us make it straight from the beginning. This is quite a wide motion, but it is on a particular subject. This is not a free-for-all for general criticism on any matter. An awful lot of Members want to speak today, and I will insist that everybody speaks to the motion, that we do not have long interventions and that interventions must be to the point.

Thangam Debbonaire: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) for her intervention, because one thing we have learned over the past few weeks is the  danger of making Members march up to the top of the hill and then leaving them there. When the Government make a screeching U-turn the next day, they leave their own troops feeling a little undefended.

Danny Kruger: The hon. Lady speaks of changing position. She stood on a manifesto to ban second jobs altogether. Does she still stand by that? If so, how does she account for the Leader of the Opposition earning £100,000 from a second job in recent years?

Thangam Debbonaire: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman seems to have read the 2019 Labour manifesto. If he read it carefully, he would know that is not exactly what it said. It had a clear set of principles, and what my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition announced yesterday is that there should be an underlying principle of second jobs not being allowed but that there could be some exceptions. I do not think anyone in this place thinks it is wrong that doctors should serve to keep up their licence and help the NHS. Does anyone think it is wrong that Army reservists should continue to be Army reservists? No, of course they do not.
Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition proposed strong changes so that MPs do not have a second job without very good reason. At the moment, I do not see the Government coming up with anything strong. All they have done is try to gut our motion, which would put in train the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, made three years ago—the Government could have enacted it any time—that no MP should take money for being a political strategist, an assistant or some sort of corporate adviser. That should not happen. If Conservative Members want to make sure those jobs go, they should vote with us to get rid of them. It is our motion that does that.

Colum Eastwood: Is the hon. Lady aware of the origins of the word “Tory”? It comes from the old Irish word “tóraí”, meaning outlaw or robber. Does she agree that the parcel of rogues now occupying high office in this place are really living up to their name?

Thangam Debbonaire: We learn something new every day. I was not aware of that, but I am on record as having been steadfast in my consistent criticism of what the Government have done over the past two weeks and in previous weeks and months. It is unfortunate that the Government, who should be lawmakers or at least law observers, are led by someone who has already been found by the courts of this land to have broken the law when he illegally prorogued Parliament. That is a bad example for a lawmaker to set, and it is problematic. It rather illustrates what my hon. Friend mentioned.

Bob Seely: I did not vote for the motion two weeks ago, and I quite agree that lawmakers should not be law breakers. Seven Labour Members of Parliament have had jail sentences in the past 10 years, and one of them is appealing her sentence. Labour Members are not the best people to speak on this.

Thangam Debbonaire: The hon. Gentleman gives me the opportunity to draw a contrast. When Labour Members do bad things, we make sure they go. None of them is  here. That happens even when, as in the case of a recent by-election, we lose the seat as a result. The contrast is that when Labour Members are found guilty of doing bad things, we make sure they are got rid of. The Conservative party not so much.
The mess of an amended motion that was so disgracefully backed by the Government two weeks ago was finally removed yesterday after a great deal of Chamber farce, goodness me. It feels to me as though the Government’s actions are too little, too late.

Chi Onwurah: The Leader of the House has said that the reason the Government tried to tear up the rulebook was that their and his judgment was clouded by the situation of a friend. Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason we have standards in public life is so that our judgment is not clouded by sympathy and that, more importantly, our judgment should always be influenced by the situation of our constituents, not the situation of our mates?

Thangam Debbonaire: The point about those standards is that they were set not by me or by the Leader of the House but by Lord Nolan three or four decades ago in response to a previous Tory sleaze scandal. The reason we have those standards is to make sure that we can be held to them. The reason we have a standards process is to make sure we are properly held to account. And the reason we were asked to vote on the standards motion two weeks ago was to sanction a Member who had been properly investigated and found to have committed egregious acts of paid lobbying. If Conservative Members had just voted for the standards motion, rather than trying to mangle it, we probably would not be here today.

Shailesh Vara: The hon. Lady will be aware that, earlier this month, a conference held by the Communication Workers Union passed a resolution stating that funding from the union would
“go to specific Labour candidates and campaigns that support CWU industrial and political aims and to support the selection and election of such candidates.”
They may not be direct payments, but it would be naive —[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. Shouting at the hon. Gentleman is simply impolite. And laughing at me for saying so is worse. We will have better behaviour, on both sides of the House, please. I call Thangam Debbonaire.

Shailesh Vara: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Oh, I am sorry, I thought the hon. Gentleman had finished. He ought to finish very quickly, because I said we need short interventions.

Shailesh Vara: There may not be direct payment here, but this is obvious, and it would be naive to assume that these would not be wholesale purchases of candidates speaking up for the trade union. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is a form of—[Interruption.] That should not be allowed.

Thangam Debbonaire: For goodness’ sake. The hon. Gentleman said it himself: there is no direct payment to Members there. I am absolutely sure that the Conservative party accepts donations to its campaign costs. The trade  union movement is the founding father of the Labour party and it does not buy influence. What it does is support our campaigning, and this is properly investigated and reported.

Shailesh Vara: rose—

Thangam Debbonaire: The hon. Gentleman is going to make another speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will give way.

Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman is not going to make another speech. He is going to make a very short intervention.

Shailesh Vara: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I was making is very simple: these people owe their seats in Parliament to the funding of the trade unions and therefore they would be lobbying for the union in every way. This is irrespective of whether they are paid directly or indirectly, with an indirect payment to their associations.

Thangam Debbonaire: I do hope that there are no Conservative Members who have taken donations from anybody at any time, because these are donations to political parties—to political campaigns. They do not go to individuals, as the hon. Gentleman very well knows. He did rather promise that he was not going to make a speech, but it was good of him to explain to me, in case my little lady brain had not got it the first time.

Martin Docherty: On donations to political parties, does she agree that the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party’s utilising Scottish limited partnerships fundamentally exposes those on the Government Benches for what they are utilising to undermine democracy itself.

Thangam Debbonaire: The hon. Gentleman has made an extremely helpful point and I hope he will be expanding on it further later.
With the reputation of Parliament at risk of being ripped apart thanks to the actions of this Government, particularly in the past two weeks, they must start to restore trust in our democracy. There is a way they can do that: they can back this Opposition motion.

Angus MacNeil: I have a simple question: why will the Labour party not categorically state that it will not be sending high-value donors to the House of Lords, for a five-year period or whatever?

Thangam Debbonaire: What we are doing today is starting the process of making Parliament accountable and making sure that there are good rules. We are making sure that when Members of Parliament are for sale they are not allowed to be for sale. I invite all Members, in all parts of the House, be they Scottish National party Members or Tories, to vote for this motion. I invite them all to vote for a very clear motion, which does what the Prime Minister said yesterday that he wanted to do. If Conservative Members want to  vote for what the Prime Minister said he wanted to do, they need to vote for our motion today, as does every other Member.
My right hon. and learned Friend the leader of the Labour party also said yesterday that we need to strengthen our system radically. He proposed various things, which are not in scope of today’s debate, so I will not go into them, but I think that what the Prime Minister—[Interruption.] Sorry, I should have said “Leader of the Opposition”; it is an easy mistake to make, because I would like him to be Prime Minister. What the Leader of the Opposition did yesterday was indicate clearly and strongly to everyone, from all parties, that we need stronger standards, not weaker ones. Today we have the first step and the first step only. I expect that the Prime Minister will be joining us in the Lobby today—the Aye Lobby—on our motion, because it seems to be coterminous with what he said. But the Prime Minister’s letter to Mr Speaker, which he tweeted out yesterday, was a bit of a surprise, given that the Committee on Standards in Public Life report came out three years ago. That is where these recommendations came from. In three years, we have had no response from the Government, until yesterday, when it looked as though the Prime Minister was in a bit of difficulty and needed something to get out of it with. Two weeks ago, all we had was the Government seeming to urge the standards commissioner to resign and ripping up the entire system.
I said yesterday that I do not expect that the Leader of the House listens to my every word, but perhaps I was wrong and those on the Government Benches have been paying close attention to what I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition and future Prime Minister have been saying. Perhaps they have been convinced by my argument—our argument—that our standards system is crucial and needs to be protected, enhanced, strengthened and never weakened. Just yesterday, five former Cabinet Secretaries—all the living former Cabinet Secretaries—wrote to the Prime Minister asking him to strengthen standards. He could show that he has listened to them by backing our motion; if I look at the amendment he has tabled, that does not seem to me to be the case. His amendment certainly would not strengthen the system and already seems to be a rowing back on what he said just about 24 hours ago. One minute it seems that the Prime Minister has been backed into a corner and is ready to accept our motion; the next minute he comes forward with a toothless amendment.
If Government Members vote down our motion in favour of the Prime Minister’s wrecking amendment, let us be clear what they will be voting for. I want them all to pay attention, because I think some of them wish they had paid more attention two weeks ago. Our motion, and only our motion, will guarantee that this House and these Members will get to vote on the Standards Committee’s recommendations to strengthen our code of conduct. It is our motion, and only our motion, that will fulfil the recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. The Prime Minister’s amendment does nothing but water down our motion. It is yet another example of the Government trying to sweep sleaze under the rug without dealing with it.
We all know that to be elected to this House as a Member of Parliament is a privilege, and one that the vast majority of Members treat with the seriousness and respect it deserves. The passing of our motion will dispel an unfortunate perception that MPs can be hired   out, which is of course not the case with almost every MP in this House, apart from the ones the Government are trying to protect—their private business interests come before the interests of their constituents. That is not what we want the public to think because it should never, ever be true. Our motion will ensure that the public know that no MP’s power, influence or position is for sale—

Shailesh Vara: Unless it’s for a union.

Thangam Debbonaire: There are all these interventions from a sedentary position about the trade union movement; I have yet to see the Electoral Commission tell us that we should not be taking, and declaring quite properly, donations from the trade union movement that do not come anywhere near our individual accounts. Such donations are to fund political campaigns and are properly declared.

Alex Sobel: Trade unions use their political funds, which are regulated under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, voted on by millions of working people up and down this country and properly registered when they are donated to a political party. If the Conservative party is anti-worker, let it say that clearly.

Thangam Debbonaire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting it much better than I could have. Trade unions are not-for-profit organisations to help to support workers’ rights. There is a world of difference there and they are quite properly declared. As far as I can see, there is no suggestion in the report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life that that should be changed. We are talking about the difference between private companies trying to buy access to the Government and trade unions that stand up for and campaign on workers’ rights making properly declared donations quite rightly within the electoral rules.

Felicity Buchan: The Leader of the Opposition has earned more than £110,000 since he became an MP; does the hon. Lady condone that—yes or no?

Thangam Debbonaire: Oh goodness me! My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in contrast with the Prime Minister, is actually trying to strengthen the rules, not weaken them. In strengthening them, he is showing no fear, no favour and no concern for whether that has an impact on MPs on the Opposition Benches or on the Government Benches. He is trying to propose something that strengthens the rules across the board. I think that is important and really matters. The Leader of the Opposition has also quite properly declared everything. We should note that in all parties there are lawyers, doctors and members of the armed forces who serve as reservists, whose professional qualifications we may wish them to keep up. Since he became the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. and learned Friend has not taken on any private practice, and I believe he has relinquished his licence. That shows admirable dedication, in contrast with the Prime Minister: all he has done is try to rip up the rulebook.

Catherine McKinnell: I apologise for interrupting the flow of my hon. Friend’s excellent speech. Does she share my dismay  over where we have got to today? We are still debating this issue and, rather than raising and elevating this House, the interventions from Government Members appear to wish to drag us all into the gutter.

Thangam Debbonaire: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. It is a very sad day, because, rather than taking this on the chin, admitting they made a mistake, which they seemed to be doing last week, and moving on constructively, the Government just want to give the very false impression that all MPs are for sale. That is simply not true and they know it.
Paid advocacy has been against the rules since 1695, so it is not a new rule, but, throughout the centuries, especially in the past three decades, the standards  system has been strengthened—until the last fortnight. That consensus has been systematically shredded by this Government—whether it is the Prime Minister not enforcing the ministerial code on his Cabinet or the Leader of the House seeking to undermine the standards procedure—and this has to stop. It is not good enough. The public—our constituents—rightly expect and deserve better than this.
The previous Labour Government legislated to clean up politics after the Tory sleaze of the 1990s. I give as examples: the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000; the ministerial code; freedom of information; public registers of donations and national election spending; and the Electoral Commission, which this Government also seem to want to undermine. Those all came about because of the Labour Government, whereas in 2018, when the independent and external Committee on Standards in Public Life, set up to deal with the previous Tory scandal, recommended that the MPs’ code of conduct should be updated, the Tory Government ignored it. The report said:
“MPs should not accept any paid work to provide services as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant, for example, advising on parliamentary affairs or on how to influence Parliament and its members. MPs should never accept any payment or offers of employment to act as political or parliamentary consultants or advisers.”
It could not be clearer, and that is what our motion today sets out to achieve. I hope that the Government will be supporting this, because, as I have said and I will say it again, no MP should be for hire. This is not about outside interests per se, because the vast majority of Members work tirelessly to represent their constituents and are not seeking to privately profit from that work. Outside interests are often a way for MPs to connect with the world outside of this place—a point that has been made by many MPs and others.

Andrew Gwynne: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important point. It should not take a report of the Committee on Standards to state the blindingly obvious to Members of this House. If they are a full-time Member of Parliament, they do not have the time outside of their constituency affairs, outside of their parliamentary duties in this House, to do other paid work. Is not that just clearly obvious to all except a few Members who are on the take?

Thangam Debbonaire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing that up, because, of course, that is one thing that my right hon. and learned Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, stated clearly in his speech yesterday. He said that the default setting should be that there are  no second jobs. He did say that, in certain professional circumstances, there may need to be exceptions, but that should be up to the independent body to determine, not us. The way that the Government have behaved over the events of the past few weeks, including the case of Owen Paterson, former MP for North Shropshire, have shown us that the rules are obviously not strong enough. It seems to be too easy for the Government to try to rip them up when they fancy. They have sought to weaken and undermine the rules around standards, whereas our intention with our motion is simple: we want to strengthen standards and we want to restore the public’s trust in Parliament and this is the necessary next step.

Alexander Stafford: The hon. Lady made interesting points about MPs, but does she agree that those same standards should be applied to all parliamentarians, including those in the House of Lords? Three shadow Ministers in the Lords actually work for lobbying companies.

Thangam Debbonaire: For goodness’ sake—I am surprised that the hon. Member does not know more about the House of Lords. Unlike in this House, Lords receive not a salary, but a daily allowance, which is not the same. They work on an entirely different basis and they do not have constituents. I do not see any proposals from the Government on reforming the House of Lords in this way, so it seems hollow for the hon. Member to say that he wants such changes.
The Government created this mess. If they do not support our motion today, it will be yet more warm words but no action; they are very good at that. They created this mess by trying to undermine the standards process in the first place. We would not be here if they had not done so two weeks ago. They must back our motion today and not the Prime Minister’s amendment, because that is nothing but warm platitudes with no concrete action to strengthen our standards system. It has been open to the Government to strengthen the system for the past three years, since the publication of the report on MPs’ outside interests. It was down to the Government to respond to that report, but they have not—until they have been absolutely pushed, kicking and screaming, to back one or two little bits because it suits them to get out of a hole.
The choice has never been clearer and the solution is here: our motion. If the Government do not back our motion this afternoon and choose to support the Prime Minister’s watered-down amendment, they are sending the message that they are content with the perception that their Cabinet Ministers and MPs put self-interest and private business interests above the interests of their constituents. They are sending that message not because I have said so, but because the Committee on Standards in Public Life said so, three years ago.
The message that the Government will be sending if they do not vote for our motion is that nothing needs to change, that they are happy with the headlines of the last few weeks of sleaze and corruption, and that this sort of behaviour is acceptable. They really will be sending the message that it is one rule for them and another for everyone else, and that if Government Members get caught out, the rules need not apply—they will just be changed to protect them—and the consequences do not matter. None of us should be prepared to accept that.

Chris Elmore: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I know that she will agree that one of the messages that the Government are sending is to the victims of sexual misconduct found to have been undertaken by any Member of Parliament. The Leader of the House claimed at the time that he agreed with that rule being changed, but that it could not be changed retrospectively. It is therefore a failure of him and of the Government that they will change the rules when a Member has been accused of corruption, but not retrospectively when a Member has been found guilty of sexual misconduct.

Thangam Debbonaire: It pains me to have to remind the Leader of the House that Government Members seem to think that it is all right to try to change the rules to get someone off the hook, but not to change the rules to ensure that someone is properly sanctioned; I still call on the Government to deal with that situation.
We do not need to accept this situation. We can take the first step to changing it, and our motion today would do so. The public deserve more than where we are at the moment. They deserve a Government who will act in their best interests and in the national interest. I believe that that is a Labour Government. The public have shown that they want reform and reform is what the Labour party will do. We must never be complacent. We must protect and strengthen standards. We must have a democracy that the British public are proud of, and that people trust and believe in.

Anthony Browne: If a Labour Government would be so keen on reforming the system, why did the last Labour Government do nothing to reform lobbying during their 13 years in power, and why did Labour vote against the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014?

Thangam Debbonaire: I can go back to the list of things that Labour did: the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000; the ministerial code; freedom of information; public registers of donations and national election spending; the Electoral Commission. The clear difference here is that a Labour Government did not rip up the rulebook when one of their own was found wanting. This Government did. They did it two weeks ago and they tried to keep going. Only now that they are finding that the public do not like it are they being dragged here, kicking and screaming. But, unfortunately, from the reaction of Government Members, it looks to me like they have no intention of voting for our motion tonight. If they have no intention of doing so, let them come clean in their speeches as to why.

Alexander Stafford: Will the hon. Member give way?

Thangam Debbonaire: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and I am coming to the end of my speech.

Janet Daby: Does my hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members are lacking humility, given the fact that their Government tried to rip up the rulebook to save their mates when it was convenient for them?

Thangam Debbonaire: I do agree. It would also be an awful lot more seemly if the Government were prepared to follow through on their actions.
The Prime Minister said yesterday that he wanted to ban these paid consultancy roles. So vote for our motion: it is there on the Order Paper; it does exactly what the Prime Minister said. Do Conservative Members actually want to do what their Prime Minister says he wants? Perhaps they do not; perhaps that is what is going on. Perhaps they do not back their Prime Minister—but if they do, they could follow through on what he said only yesterday, 24 hours ago, and vote for the Labour motion.

Alexander Stafford: I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s speech and this is an important point that needs to be addressed. Could she explain, though, why she does not agree with the proposals put forward by the Prime Minister and how her proposals are better? What is the difference?

Thangam Debbonaire: I wonder whether the hon. Member has actually read the proposal by the Prime Minister. The proposal in the amendment—the only thing that is on offer to vote for today from the Prime Minister—weakens, waters down, takes away the deadline and takes away the vote, and the Leader of the House knows this.
Conservative Members need to accept that the time has now come. Today is the day. They need to stand up and be counted. If they want to follow through on what their Prime Minister said yesterday, they need to vote for the Labour motion today. Will they? We will see.

Rosie Winterton: Before I call the Leader of the House to move the amendment, colleagues will be aware that there are a number of people who wish to contribute to the debate, so it is likely that we will start with a time limit of five minutes on Back-Bench speeches.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add: “acknowledges recent concern over the outside interests of Members of Parliament; believes the rules which apply to MPs must be up to date, effective and appropriately rigorous; recalls the 2018 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life into this matter; believes that recommendations 1 and 10 in that report form the basis of a viable approach which could command the confidence of parliamentarians and the public; believes that these recommendations should be taken forward; and supports cross-party work, including that being done by the House’s Committee on Standards, to bring forward recommendations to update the Code of Conduct for MPs by 31 January 2022.”
It is an honour to speak in this Opposition day debate today, and an honour indeed to follow the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who has been giving us an object lesson as to why people in glasshouses are best advised not to throw stones. It is always a privilege for any hon. or right hon. Member to speak in this House, at any time, on any day. We come here fully aware of the fundamental principle that lies at the heart of our parliamentary democracy: first and  foremost, we work on behalf of our constituents. As Edmund Burke said in his address to the electors of Bristol in 1774, familiar territory to the hon. Lady—[Interruption.] No, I was not actually there, unfortunately: it would have a great pleasure to listen to Edmund Burke, such a distinguished figure in our history. He said that
“parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole.”
Our primary duty is to the electorate. It is their interests we are here to represent, and to them, also, that we must answer at the ballot box. But if being a champion of our constituents is critical to an MP’s role, it is also our innate duty to act in the interests of the nation as a whole.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: In Parliament we scrutinise legislation and hold the Executive to account, both in debates in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall, and through our work on a range of Committees. Speaking of Committees, I give way to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), a distinguished Committee Chairman.

Angus MacNeil: I am sorry myself that I missed that quote in Bristol in 1770-whatever it was. This is a good and well-intentioned debate on strengthening standards in public life, but Labour studiously avoids dealing with cash for honours. We should remember that the Prime Minister was interviewed under police caution on this matter back in 2006. I have tried with Labour and I will now try with the Conservatives: will the Tories rule out the practice of cash for honours—a very corrupt practice where high-value cash donors find themselves up in the House of Lords, buying their place in a Parliament in what is meant to be a western democracy, for goodness’ sake?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this, because he knows a great deal about Maundy Gregory and the scandal that came about with Lloyd George, and indeed corresponded with my late father on this subject when cash for honours came up. Cash for honours is illegal and has been for the best part of 100 years. It is rightly illegal and is wholly improper. The hon. Gentleman has been right in his campaigns to ensure that that never tarnishes our way of life.

Stephen Flynn: rose—

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Let me carry on at this stage.
The Government hold their position solely by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons, and it is primarily from the elected Chamber that Ministers are appointed. Given the spectrum of responsibilities, the Government believe it an historic strength of our system that MPs should have a wider focus than the Westminster bubble and that we should maintain connections to the world beyond, so that we may draw on the insights and expertise that this experience offers so that, rather than a Chamber replete with professional politicians with no previous career or future career other than to remain on the public payroll, we have a Parliament that benefits from MPs with a broader range of talents and professional backgrounds.

Stewart Hosie: I agree with the Leader of the House about Members having a wide range of backgrounds. I also agree with Burke that our first duty should be to serve our constituents, but hon. Members are picking up from their second job tens, scores or hundreds of thousands of pounds a year, and one cannot serve two paymasters. Has the time not come to, at the very least, agree to this modest motion today and ban at least certain categories of jobs to avoid the allegation that people are serving two paymasters?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I think it important that there should be some humble crofters in this House who can bring their experience and their wisdom, and not only humble crofters, but people who have experience of the City of London—sometimes, they happen to be one and the same person. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that that brings distinction to the House, particularly on Wednesday afternoons.
This sort of experience, gained both prior to a Member’s election and once they have taken up their parliamentary seat, is beneficial. The profusion of perspectives, be they corporate, trade union or charitable, brings a welcome variety to this place, and enhances the quality of challenge we hear in debate and throughout the business of the House.

Rupa Huq: The Leader of the House talks about the good and the humble. Would he agree with the sentiment that bad people will always find a way around rules? The point of rules is to draw them as tightly as possible so that that does not happen. Five living Cabinet Secretaries said so in The Times yesterday. If he does agree, what were the Government thinking of the other week? Does he realise how it looks?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I do not hold the Labour party responsible for the fact that six people, and one currently appealing, have been sentenced to jail terms or suspended jail terms as socialist Members. I do not hold that against the socialists because I understand that even well-intentioned parties with a high moral standard and an enormous amount of self-righteousness will occasionally have rotten apples within them.
We have seen in recent weeks growing and sincerely held concerns across the House about the outside interests of Members of Parliament, particularly where potential conflicts of interests may arise. Here, the Government are clear that the reputation of Parliament must come first—more than that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister says, it is imperative that on a cross-party consensus we put beyond doubt the reputation of the House of Commons by having rules for MPs that are up-to-date, effective and appropriately rigorous so as to continue to command the confidence of the public, whom we are here to serve. That is why the Prime Minister has written to Mr Speaker to set out the Government’s advocacy of reforms to update the code of conduct that sets out the standards of behaviour for MPs as we carry out our work.

Debbie Abrahams: The Leader of the House is absolutely right, this debate and this motion are about the integrity of not just this House and this place, but our political system as a whole. So should the Prime Minister have corrected  the record in January when he incorrectly said that PPE contracts had been published when the High Court ruled that they had not?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The Government’s behaviour with PPE was the subject of the previous debate and was essential to ensure that, in very short order, a very large quantity was provided. What was done to provide the vaccine and sufficient quantities of PPE was absolutely right.

Liz Saville-Roberts: The Leader of the House mentioned cross-party working. On the theme of the previous intervention, the leader of Plaid Cymru, Adam Price, introduced a Bill when he was in this place 14 years ago that would have made the wilful misleading of this House by a politician an offence. Should we bring that Bill forward again?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The right hon. Lady raises an interesting constitutional question, because misleading this House would arguably be a breach of the privileges of this House, and to take that to a court would be a breach of article 9 of the Bill of Rights. Although I think that misleading this House is a serious offence, it is an offence punishable within and by this House through our privileges processes, and it would be wrong to take the proceedings of this House to a court, which would take away one of our most fundamental constitutional protections of freedom of speech in this House. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will forgive me that constitutional dilation in response to the right hon. Lady’s important point.
In a moment or two I will come to the details of the Prime Minister’s letter and how they relate to the motion before us, but I want first to address the substance of the issues that I know, from my recent conversations with hon. and right hon. Members, have been of particular concern. I have already emphasised the supremacy of an MP’s parliamentary and constituency work, but we also recognise that there are certain external roles that seem particularly at odds with the job of an MP—namely, those that would capitalise on an insider’s knowledge of Parliament and Government. I can confirm to the House that we believe the experience and expertise we accrue as part of our work as MPs should not be for sale. We are elected to Parliament on a promise to work for the greater good not of ourselves, but of our constituents and our country.
Turning to the specifics of the motion, we can see from the Prime Minister’s letter to the Speaker that the Government are proposing to go beyond the terms set out for today’s debate. The Prime Minister made clear the Government’s view that the MPs’ code of conduct should be updated as a matter of urgency to reflect two key recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its 2018 report on MPs’ outside interests. We wish to endorse, first, the key recommendation of the Committee in relation to MPs’ outside interests. It is self-evident that being an MP is the greatest responsibility and, indeed, honour. Therefore, any undertaking of paid employment must remain within reasonable limits, and it should not prevent MPs from fully performing their range of duties whether in their constituency or in this place.

Edward Leigh: Of course, everybody agrees with that, but how does one determine realistically what is taking too much of one’s time on an outside interest? It should be common sense and it should be left to the judgment of the electorate. What worries me is that, if it is left to the commissioner for standards, however distinguished, that will give that official a degree of power never enjoyed by any official ever before over Members of Parliament. We are accountable not to officials, but to our electorate.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are responsible and accountable to our voters. This is why the Chairman of the Standards Committee will be leading his distinguished Committee in looking into this and I hope will make recommendations to the House.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way, and this is very naughty of me because I have only just walked in from the Liaison Committee; I am breaking all the standards of the House. The only point I want to make is that I think it would be very difficult for the commissioner to start investigating whether an MP was devoting enough of their time to their constituents. Of course, all our constituents want us to throw ourselves heart and soul into our work, and I think we all do. Many of us work many more hours than a normal working week—60, 70, 80 hours. But I am just very hesitant about going down this route of timesheets or something. She already gets thousands of requests every year saying that an MP has not replied to an email, he or she has voted the wrong way, or whatever. I just urge him, and I will urge my Committee very strongly, to think very carefully about this.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I thank the hon. Gentleman, the parliamentary leader of Plaid Cymru, the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar for their good temper and sense in this debate and for trying to bring a genuinely cross-party approach?
As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has pointed out, these issues are complex. They are not open to easy solutions; they need deliberation. How people lead their lives depends very much on them as individuals, and trying to work out how an MP fulfils his or her duties is not something that can easily be put down in a time and motion study. That is why we are hoping that his Committee will be able to consider it and then bring forward recommendations that, with support on a cross-party basis, may prove acceptable to the House as a whole.
If I may continue, we endorse the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s recommendation that MPs should be banned from accepting any paid work to provide services as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant. It is, of course, the case that amending the code of conduct for MPs is a matter for Parliament, rather than for the Government—indeed, strictly speaking it is a matter for this House, the Commons, because of our exclusive cognisance of our own affairs. However, Her Majesty’s Government believe that those two recommendations form the basis of a viable approach that could command the confidence of both parliamentarians and the public, and would therefore like to see them adopted.
Coming to the final part of my remarks—this is the point at which normally, somebody says, “Hear, hear”—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!] Thank you. I know that some hon. Members like nothing more in debate than to start delving down the procedural rabbit holes of the merits or otherwise of Standing Orders and the like. I am not immune to that temptation myself, but I do not think it would be useful in this instance. It is an established convention—this is one problem with the Opposition motion—that the Government are able to transact their business in the House of Commons, and the House itself has long recognised that principle in Standing Order No. 14, which provides that Government business takes precedence.
To give this motion from the Standards Committee immediate precedence would be both impractical and unnecessary. Her Majesty’s Government support the amendment to
“bring forward recommendations to update the code of conduct for MPs by 31 January 2022”,
which sets a clear timeframe for progress on the issues discussed today. The Government therefore support a more practical amendment that acknowledges the concerns we have all been hearing in recent days, and positively proposes that the proportionate measures devised by the Committee on Standards in Public Life should be taken forward on a cross-party basis. That would include the work being done by this House’s Committee on Standards, in accordance with the timeframe suggested by Opposition Members. We have listened, and we have very much taken into account what they have proposed. It is important to note that on this matter, as on the other issues before us today relating to the code of conduct, the Government recognise that any changes are a matter for the House, and are looking ahead to the next steps being taken in a way that seeks consensus and respects the views of all sides of the House.

Pete Wishart: It is great to follow the Leader of the House. I do not often get the opportunity to follow him in a debate in the House, so it is good to see him in his place and in such fine fettle and a reasonably good mood, after the difficult and torrid time he had at the Dispatch Box yesterday. It is good to see him back here today, taking up his responsibilities as Leader of the House, and coming here and fronting the important debate we are holding today.
Today is an auspicious day. Today we mark the two-week anniversary of this new age of Tory sleaze, and the not-so-glorious era of Tory chaos on standards and behaviour—a period in our political history that will now never be forgotten. Like all great historical epochs, it has its heroes and villains in the people who have defined it. Most notably among them is, of course, the Leader of the House himself. Then we have the Government Chief Whip, and it was all masterminded, organised and administered by the chief of staff of this organisation, the Prime Minister himself. This is the troika of standards misery; the holy trinity of standing up for your pal when the going gets tough.
Then there are the winners. We know who the winners are, as there are quite a lot of them. They have made an absolute fortune out of those second jobs. Good on them—they are the winners. Then there are the losers and the victims, and I am trying to think generally  about who those people might be. The victims, I think, are those who believe in propriety, and those who want our politics to be beyond reproach. Surprisingly, among the victims in all this I look to the Tory Back Benchers, who have been dragged up that hill by the dysfunctional Grand Old Duke of York, only to be marched all the way down again. Then, when they thought they had got to the bottom, they were dragged further into the ground by their Prime Minister. They have every right to be upset with their hard Brexiteer colleagues who are running this Government, and I am sure they never signed up to be part of a House that is so singularly loathed by the people they represent. Day after day, the headlines keep coming. Yesterday’s were quite amusing. They all involved the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, who seems to have been levelling up on his obligations to his good friend and leadership donor, David Meller, who he put in the VIP lane for £160 million of PPE contracts.
Today our attention and focus has turned to the concept of second jobs, and in their traditional, good-natured way the Government seem to want to make an absolute and utter hash of it. I think we have a good idea of what the public want when it comes to MPs’ second jobs. They want to be absolutely satisfied that no Member of Parliament is profiteering from their position as an MP. They want to know that their MP is dedicated exclusively to them, working full time in their interests and that they are their only concern. They most definitely do not want to see Members of Parliament earning the eye-watering, obscene figures that some have earned doing second jobs. They actually believe that we are handsomely paid. Most members of the public probably think that we are paid far too much for what we do. I am sure that if we were to ask them, they would be all in favour of reducing our salaries. They certainly do not believe that we need a second job to supplement the more than generous salaries that we receive for doing our important work.

Christine Jardine: The hon. Member is making a powerful point about second salaries. It was announced today that we have record inflation, at a time when we already have a cost of living crisis and rising energy bills, so does he agree that the fact that we are arguing over the fine print of whether or not MPs can earn more money does us no credit whatsoever, and that cross-party consensus would be best served by backing the Opposition motion?

Pete Wishart: The hon. Lady will not be surprised to hear me say that I wholeheartedly agree with her. We have a cost of living crisis and it was announced today that inflation is going through the roof, yet we are here debating our income and going over whether we think it is right and appropriate for MPs to earn even more than the very generous salaries that we already get for looking after constituents.

Philippa Whitford: People will know that, as a breast cancer surgeon, I have practised in the past while trying to maintain my licence. I remember being pilloried on the front of the Daily Mail for helping out over Christmas when my colleague had a heart attack. I have no issue with second jobs being regulated, whether by time, money or whatever way the House chooses, but is this not being used as a  smokescreen? The issue that was raised at the beginning of this month was not about a second job. It was about corruption, selling influence, selling contracts and selling peerages—and second jobs is being used as a cover for that.

Pete Wishart: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, who gets right to the heart of the matter. This is nothing but a smokescreen from the Government, who have thrown this out here to try to excuse their appalling behaviour over the past couple of weeks. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. She is right. She is a distinguished breast cancer surgeon and the way in which she was traduced, with the assistance of the Conservative party, for doing her job, helping out and doing that work for nothing was absolutely and utterly appalling. They should be ashamed of themselves for what they did.

Stephen Flynn: On the topic of corruption, the Leader of the House mentioned Edmund Burke earlier. We might want to reflect on another quote by Edmund Burke:
“The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse.”

Pete Wishart: I will leave that with my hon. Friend: it is a fantastic quote and I am glad that he has presented it to the House.
Today we are debating a Labour motion and a Government amendment. We have no problem with supporting the Labour motion. We will vote in favour of it, if we get the opportunity to do so. We are happy to leave it to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. We applaud it for the work that it has already put in, and the House looks forward to receiving the decision as soon as possible and to backing it in its important work.
Then we come to the Government amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) is absolutely right: this is nothing but a fig leaf, a cover up, to try to divert attention and get away from the real issues, including the Prime Minister’s private flat, his villa in wherever it is in Spain and the propriety of so many Members of Parliament. I did not even understand most of what the Leader of the House was trying to explain. If he left it just as: they would do as the Committee on Standards in Public Life suggests, that would be absolutely fine, but it seems like they want to direct the Committee on Standards in Public Life. They want to lead it into certain directions and they want to suggest to it what it should do as part of its work. I think the Chair of the Committee on Standards was absolutely right. It should be left to the Committee to determine and decide. They do not need the Government’s prompting to get these issues resolved. Let us leave it with them. It is a cross-party Committee. It is a Committee that is well chaired by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is very studious and diligent about his work.
Today—this, I think, gets to the heart of it—the hapless International Trade Secretary, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), was sent out. Somebody gets the short straw every morning and today it was the International Trade Secretary. She could not even make up her mind how many hours we should all get to work on our second jobs. I think it was initially 10 to 15 hours. Then she suggested, I think  it was in the Radio 4 interview, that it was up to 20 hours. They cannot even decide among themselves for how many hours they should get to do their second jobs.

Andy Carter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Pete Wishart: Oh, yes. I usually eat Tory Back Benchers for breakfast, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Andy Carter: I am very grateful. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a member of the Standards Committee and I just want to clarify something he mentioned earlier. He was talking about the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which is a different committee to the Committee on Standards in this House. I think he was confusing the two. I just think it is important. The Committee on Standards in Public Life is an independent committee not associated with this House.

Pete Wishart: I am fully aware of what the two different and distinct committees are. What we want to do is ensure that we get the opportunity to back the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. That is what we are looking forward to doing.
Just briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker, to remind ourselves of the scale of this problem and issue when it comes to second jobs, The Sunday Times showed us that 138 MPs have had second jobs in the past year and that 12 earn at least an extra £100,000 a year from outside interests. Almost one in four Tory MPs spends at least 100 hours a year on second jobs and 25 MPs spend more than 416 hours a year.
We in the Scottish National party believe that our  job as a Member of Parliament must be an exclusive commitment to our constituents. We also want to see all of Parliament included. That includes that rotten corrupt circus down that corridor there. The House of Lords has to be included in this. I welcome the valiant efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) to try to get the issue looked at again—his amendment was not selected—and all my other colleagues who have been trying to press this issue. It cannot and can never be right that someone can be rewarded with a place in the House of Lords for giving £3 million to the coffers of the Tory party. It is a measure that would make a tin-pot dictator in a banana republic blush, with the size and amount of sleaze and scandal.

Martin Docherty: Does my hon. Friend agree that with the Government backpedalling on the previous notion of a new committee, we need to ensure that cross-party support for the present Committee also goes to the upper Chamber, where we stop appointing Members from the Opposition to an unelected, unaccountable House of Lords?

Pete Wishart: Absolutely. We have a duty, an obligation and a responsibility to make sure we have the best possible standards in the unelected Chamber. It is the Prime Minister who appoints Members to the House of Lords. It is lists drawn up by party leaders that give those appointments an opportunity to be placed there. That has to stop. I know this House likes the place up there for some reason, watching people dressed up like Santa Claus prance around the place, but they are put  there because they are donors, cronies or placemen. It is an appalling abuse, a corrupt House, and we should be looking at abolishing it, not putting more people in because they happen to give the Tory party £3 million.

Hannah Bardell: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on a stunning speech, as ever, on this issue. Does he agree that it is long past time since we banned the practice of Members who have been rejected at the ballot box paying their way into an upper Chamber? Does he agree that in an independent Scotland there will be no unelected upper Chamber and that all members of our legislature will be democratically elected?

Pete Wishart: I agree absolutely and utterly. There is no place in any democratic system for people who are put there by a Prime Minister just because they happened to give his party £3 million. We would never accept that in an independent Scotland.
That brings me to my next point—I am grateful to my hon. Friend—because the people of Scotland are observing this and they do not like what they are seeing. It is just making them more determined that we get away from this sleazy, corrupt, rotten cesspit of a place and start to be self-governing in our nation of Scotland. They are embarrassed by this place and, unfortunately, Scotland has not been left unscathed by the behaviour of Members of Parliament.

Charles Walker: If the hon. Gentleman really believes that this place is a cesspit,  he should just leave. Leave with your Members—[Interruption.] No, seriously, leave—give up your jobs and go. To call this place that does so much good—Members on both sides of the House, including on the SNP Benches—a cesspit is an appalling thing to do.

Pete Wishart: I am really pleased that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, because he could assist us in doing that. I know that we are an irritant to him and that he cannot stand us—we in the Scottish National party who speak up for our nation—but there is an easy, elegant, neat solution: you govern yourselves and we will govern ourselves.

Rosie Winterton: Order.

Pete Wishart: I am sorry—not you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that you govern yourself very effectively, but they can govern themselves in all their corrupt, sleazy beauty while we could get on with running a proper, democratic, accountable Scottish Parliament in an independent Scotland. That is the answer to what the hon. Gentleman said.

Christine Jardine: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Pete Wishart: I will not—I have given way to the hon. Lady and I have to get on.
We have a real issue with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), because he has the very definition of a second job, being both a Member of this House and a Member of the Scottish Parliament. He also has the added complication that he is a part-time assistant referee. His  difficulties have only been compounded, and it gives me no pleasure to say this, because he did not properly declare the considerable sum—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I do hope that the hon. Gentleman has given notice that he intends to talk about another Member in his speech.

Pete Wishart: I most definitely did, Madam Deputy Speaker. I assure you that I would never mention an hon. Member without giving them notice in advance that I intended to raise the issue.
The hon. Member for Moray has the very definition of a second job. It is simply impossible for him to give his full attention to his constituents as their MP—as the Prime Minister now demands from Conservative MPs—when he needs to be in the Scottish Parliament as the leader of the Scottish Conservatives.
Let me give an example: the good people of Moray were not represented in the Finance Bill vote last night. The hon. Gentleman simply was not here. He had to be some place else, quite legitimately, in another job. He has to decide—on the strictures of the Prime Minister, who said this—whether he can be a full-time Member of Parliament and represent his constituents full time in this House or be the leader of the Scottish Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament. He cannot do both. He is not here now—I know he is probably in the Scottish Parliament; he might not be, but he has First Minister’s questions tomorrow when he will have to be there—but I say him to him very candidly that he should decide which Parliament he wants to be part of, because it is quite clear that he cannot do both, and I think his Prime Minister recognises that.

Stewart Hosie: This is in the public domain, Madam Deputy Speaker: if we look at the Leader of the House’s entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, we see that, in 2016, he has an entry for January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August and September. How much he earned does not matter, but he claims that he worked 35 hours in each of those months. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) believe that it is possible to be a full-time MP and find an extra week’s worth of work time every month for a second job?

Pete Wishart: The short answer is that I do not believe that that is possible. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) has been a colleague of mine for 15 years in this House, and I know the hours that he puts in to make sure that the good people of Dundee are represented in this place. He would never be able to find those hours, so I do not know how the Leader of the House was able to.
We also have to turn, ever so briefly, to something else that is going on in Scottish politics and deeply concerns me: dark money and the use of unincorporated associations to give money directly into the coffers of the Scottish Conservatives. We do not know much about those unincorporated associations; sometimes we are given an email address, a telephone number or even the name of a building, but we have absolutely no idea where their income comes from or how they are able to funnel it into the coffers of the Scottish Conservatives. It is a disgrace that they can continue doing so. We must get on with fixing that.
In my 20 years in this place, I think I have spoken in every debate on second jobs and standards in this House. As you will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, we looked at the matter most recently in February 2015 when there was a scandal about a sting operation involving Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind. We all got together like this, we all spoke ever so highly and in detail about what we should do to address the problem, and we declared that we would do something about it. Is it not sad that we are back here seven years later saying the same things, determined to try to clean this place up?
We should not have to be here again. We should have had this dealt with. We are going through a terrible, terrible period in our politics just now. It is down to Conservative Members: the resolution lies with them. Back the Labour motion and throw out this stupid amendment.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. We will start with a time limit of six minutes, which may well have to come down. Of course, there is no obligation to take the whole six minutes.

Charles Walker: I wish I could say that it is a pleasure to speak in this debate, but I do not think that it will be a pleasure for any colleague. It has been a very bruising two weeks, but I am reflecting on the few things that I have learned in my 17 years in this place. With the House’s indulgence, I will put them on the record in a non-partisan way.
In my capacity as a Select Committee Chair for 10 years, I have had the pleasure of working with hon. Members from all Benches. Before we get carried away with calling ourselves all sorts of names, it is important that we remember where this can end up. The first lesson that I have learned in this place is that we are never happier than when burning each other to a crisp. We love to skewer each other, place ourselves on the barbecue, roast ourselves pink and then serve ourselves up with a large side order of hubris. We are all guilty of it, on both sides of the House, and we need to remember that. No one in this place is perfect.
I am also amazed to have heard people say over the past couple of weeks that we are entitled to a fair hearing. The one thing that I have learned is that we are not entitled to a fair hearing in this place. We are guilty until proven guilty: it is one of Newton’s laws. If you are a Member of Parliament, you do not get a fair hearing—sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; you are a Member of Parliament and I am sure that you would get a fair hearing, but collectively we are not entitled to one and it is naive of us to expect that we are. That plays directly into standards in public life, because we are all in public life.
Before we start talking about outside interests, let me say that I serve on the Members’ Fund, which looks after former MPs in financial trouble. I say to all colleagues: please try not to lose your seat, because it is a very cold world out there. There is not a raging bull market for ex-Members of Parliament who have come to this place, served for two, three, five or 10 years and lost their seat. Many Members who lose their seat struggle to find another job; I have dealt with some heartbreaking stories from both sides of the House.
As we talk about standards, let me say that poor judgment and flawed decision making are just that: poor judgment and flawed decision making. They are rarely the mark of corruption and sleaze. Of course poor judgment and poor decision making should be punished and we should be accountable, but to say that this place is a cesspit and full of sleaze is just not right. Those who write about this and report these cases know full well that this Parliament is not full of corruption and sleaze.
Since we are talking about pay, I must also say that whatever we were paid, many people would think it too much. Whether we were paid £10,000, £82,000, £90,000 or £50,000, there would always be a constituency of people who thought we were paid too much and would want to tell us we were paid too much. We can never, ever appease them.
Again, these are the sort of people who populate our constituencies. The world is full of some unpleasant people. We all know that, on both sides of the House—we deal with it daily. In the old days, they were armed with pens; now they are armed with keyboards, which makes it much easier for them to bring such unpleasantness and misery into our lives. The people who do this are best ignored. They do it to all Members in this place, and it is very sad.

Christine Jardine: I am slightly confused by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he insinuating that Members of Parliament should not be open to scrutiny, that we should not be answerable to the public, and that the press do not have a right to question our motives when there may be a potential conflict of interests?

Charles Walker: As I have said, I have been a Select Committee Chair for 10 years. This speech is a cry of pain. I know full well that there are many good people who can question what we do, but many others use debates of this kind—when we refer to this place as a cesspit, full of crooks and rogues—to legitimise some of their unpleasantness. We have all suffered from that, and will continue to do so. I do not get too many unpleasant emails, but I get enough to know what an unpleasant email looks like.
Let me finally say this. Today will be worse than yesterday, but it will not be as bad as tomorrow. Politics in this country is a really, really nasty business, and it is just going to get nastier. A few weeks ago, once again, people said, “We have to change: we will do things differently.” Within a matter of days, we were back where we started from. So whatever happens today, I have news for all colleagues in all parts of the House: it will not make a jot of difference. It will not improve our standing. In fact, if anything our standing will even worse—although not as bad as it will be tomorrow or in a week’s time, because that is just the way it is, I am afraid, and occasionally I think we quite like it that way.
I am not voting for any motion. A plague is deserved on all our houses.

Karl Turner: It is a pleasure to be called in what I think is an extremely important debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker).
Let me begin by thanking my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I think Members on both sides of the House would say, if they were being honest, that without his leadership on this issue nothing would be happening, and I think members of the public can see that as well. I also want to thank the Leader of the Opposition personally, because I have inundated him in the last few weeks and days. I have barracked him constantly with my opinion of the issue and what I think needs to happen for us to see change. I have contacted him so much that at one point I feared he might seek injunctive relief to try and stop me, but thank goodness, he did not. He welcomed members of the parliamentary Labour party engaging with him in these discussions, because he takes this very seriously.
I am happy to say that I am a fan of banning second jobs across the board. I signed early-day motion 627, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). I accept that there are complexities.  I do not think that my constituents in east Hull—or anyone in the country, in fact—would begrudge a Member of Parliament’s being a doctor, a surgeon, a nurse or a paramedic; those are people undertaking incredibly important public service, doing jobs for the public good. However, I think there must be limits on times, or perhaps on earnings.

Bob Seely: The hon. Gentleman is making a very sensible speech, and he is exactly right. I am a reservist; I do a few days every so often for the reserve. Does he recognise, however, that a director of a family company is also doing a deserving job, because he or she is employing people and creating the wealth that the public services need?

Karl Turner: I accept that point. I think that there are complexities involving Members who run family businesses. Perhaps they ought to think about winding them down. I know that some Conservative Members have done just that: they have been elected and come here, and then run their businesses down or passed them to other family members. There are also complexities around those hon. Members who want to write books, for example. It is incredibly important for people to be able to express themselves. When we get into the arguments about freedom of expression and so forth, we get into real legal complexities and difficulties.
I am bound to say that it is complex for lawyers who come into the House. When I was elected in 2010, I was a junior in the law—I was towards the latter end of a second six pupillage—but it was right that I had clients where I was instructed in their cases and there was potentially pay for those cases that happened a little after being elected. Lawyers who are elected but who have instructions have professional responsibilities to their client. If they were elected to Parliament, but they were acting for a client, either a lay client or the professional client who instructed them, they would be expected to wind that down and eventually pass it on. There are complexities around that.
The nub of the issue for me is that, speaking for my constituents, they think it incredible that Members of Parliament are earning, I think, £81,932 a year, three times the average wage and nearly four times the average wage of the constituency I represent. They think it unbelievable—contemptible even—that a Member of   Parliament needs to earn from a second job. Some of those second jobs, the consultancies and directorships, pay eye-watering amounts of money. The idea that a Member of this House can spend time being an MP while earning almost a million quid a year on the side is utterly contemptible, in my humble opinion.
To those who use the defence that we need experience from outside this House and a rich tapestry of people to represent the interests of the country, I say that it strikes me that we do not see Members going off and doing a 10-hour shift at Maccy D’s in their constituencies. We do not see them going off and doing the other jobs that are done by real people in the real world. Cranswick Country Foods plc, for example, is desperate for workers right now, but I am not going  to queue up, frankly speaking, to pluck chickens or turkeys ready for Christmas. That is the point that the electorate worry about: these MPs’ jobs are paying staggering amounts of money, but they are not the jobs that people recognise as second jobs for them—second jobs working to try to earn an extra few quid because they are desperate to feed their families.
I admit that I am a fan of banning second jobs, but I accept that there are complexities. We have to work together to find the solution to this issue, but for the Government to try to hide behind the pretence they have been running recently that it is necessary to bring experience to this place is just a defence people simply cannot believe or trust.

Nigel Mills: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner). I think I agree with most of what he said.
I rise to speak in this debate because I recognise that we need to change. I have thought for a long while that we need to change, and in some ways it is welcome that the events of the past fortnight have brought the need upon us. I broadly support the recommendations in the report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life from three years ago. It is probably a cause for regret that we are dealing with them now, rather than at that time.
However, I urge the House to be careful that we get this right. The public expect us to change these rules with due consideration, to ensure that rules are put in place that are fair, consistent and enforceable and do not just leave crazy loopholes. I am slightly nervous about the wording in the Labour motion about banning
“any paid work to provide services as a Parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant”.
Does that mean that somebody could change their job to being a political strategist, adviser or consultant, or a local government strategist, adviser or consultant, and somehow get around that? I think we all know what we are trying to ban, which is Members earning money by selling access to this place or selling the access that this place provides, but we should be careful to make sure we get the wording right.

Chris Bryant: The House of Lords already has a similar provision in its code of conduct. One thing the Committee on Standards might suggest—I do not want to prejudge, as I see the other members of the Committee staring at me in a grim-faced way—is that Members  must have a contract specifying certain things that they can and cannot do, which would be fairly simple. Owen Paterson never had a contract.

Nigel Mills: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If Members are taking jobs, they should have clearly defined roles and responsibilities that can be cleared or scrutinised.
We should be careful when we draw up the new rules that they are clear, consistent and enforceable so that we do not end up with Members sneaking around them because we were in a rush and a panic to try to calm a political storm or to keep it going. We should not rush into new rules that we come to regret when they do not work.
Where I agree with the Opposition motion is that we need to keep up the momentum. Although I absolutely trust the Leader of the House and the Government that we will not have further delays and backsliding, I am not convinced after the past two weeks that I can convince my constituents that I cannot vote for the motion because it forces a timetable. I will vote for the Opposition motion tonight.
I agree that we need to restrict second jobs, but I would be nervous about trying to work out a good list and a bad list of second jobs, as that becomes very hard. For example, my wife works as a pharmacist. That sounds like a health professional, but she works for a large supermarket chain. Do we allow pharmacists to work in the NHS but not in large supermarket chains because one is public sector and the other is private sector?
It becomes difficult to know what is a professional job which we would all accept a new MP coming here for a short career should keep up in practice and qualifications so that they have a chance of a job afterwards. We would not want to put off people with such qualifications from coming here at all for fear they would be locked out of their old career.
We could end up with a rather long list of good jobs that Members are allowed to do. It would be hard for such a list to be consistent, and it would be hard to apply. Such a list would inevitably have gaps that some Members fall through, so we would have to change the list all the time.
I would not go down the line of an absolute ban, and the Government’s amendment is right that we should have some sort of restriction or indication about what constitutes a Member not prioritising their role as an MP. I would be cautious about having no guidance or rules and leaving it to a commissioner to decide retrospectively whether what a Member did is within the rules.
We need a process in which we agree on the guidance, such as on whether there should be a maximum amount that Members can earn. I have some sympathy with the comment that a man cannot have two paymasters. If a Member has a lifestyle that depends on an outside income far greater than their MP’s income, there will always be a perception, or a risk, that they have to please that paymaster and that at some point there will be a vote, a debate or an issue where they are conflicted between doing what they think is right and keeping the income they desperately need. I would think carefully about an income cap at some proportion of an MP’s salary.
That does not solve my constituents’ anger that Members are spending too much time on non-parliamentary work. It is the loss of time in Parliament and in the constituency that is the problem, not just how much a Member earns. Perhaps there should be a cap on hours.
As the Committee on Standards in Public Life report said, those two things are quite hard to define. They are controversial and we might end up creating different problems, but if the House truly wants to make it clear that MPs are MPs first and foremost, and that what we do outside may have some benefits, may be fair to our future careers and may bring out some information, but it should clearly be secondary to our parliamentary role, we should ask the Committee on Standards, or whatever body we think best, to come up with a definition of how much Members can earn and how long they can spend earning it. That would be the right way forward.

Steven Bonnar: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills). I agreed with a lot of the points he was making in his very good speech. Let me begin by highlighting my despair that in the UK in the 21st century, when were are living in a post-Brexit and post-covid Britain, with thousands upon thousands of families reliant on food banks, increasing numbers of children living in poverty and a completely insecure social welfare system, instead of debating to find the solutions to those pressing matters, this sleaze scandal of the past fortnight engulfing this Government has forced us to waste more parliamentary time, once again, to highlight the undemocratic shams of this institution.
This Tory Government are far more interested in rule-rigging in here for their own financial gain than they are in supporting any struggling families out there. We saw that when the Prime Minister flew into Glasgow on the opening weekend of COP26; his priorities clearly lay elsewhere, as he flew back out shortly after. He then returned in an attempt to avoid the tidal wave of sleaze engulfing his Government and the Tory party—the tsunami of corruption was far too much. It was so embarrassing—and that is probably a parliamentary understatement. It was completely cringeworthy watching our so-called Prime Minister on the world stage at COP26 having to stand up and say that the UK is not a corrupt country and neither does he believe that its institutions are corrupt. I do not know about the Tory shires of Englandshire, but in Lanarkshire when somebody stands up to make the announcement, “We are not corrupt”, certain perceptions spring to mind. I know what the people of Coatbridge think and what the people of Chryston and Bellshill think. They take one look and think, “Aye, ye are”—yes, you are.
We are here in the middle this scandal due to the Prime Minister’s attempt to save one of his own from a 30-day suspension from this House. What their inexcusable and despicable actions have actually done is shine a light on this broken, sleazy system of cronyism and corruption right here at Westminster—right here in this place and in that other place over there. And it goes right to the very top. It undoubtedly starts at the top of this Government—Mr Paterson is a former Minister of the Government, no less.
Let us look at those with two jobs, or three, as in the case of the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross)— I have given him prior notice, Madam Deputy Speaker.  He is also the Scottish Parliament Member for Moray and a part-time assistant referee. When we think about higher standards, we must ask ourselves: how does someone actually forget to declare £28,000-worth of earnings for games of football they have recently officiated in? Did he forget he was there? Did he not catch himself on “Sportscene” highlights on a Saturday night and think, “I had better stick that in my register come Monday morning”? Perhaps he was just too busy or perhaps he does not see the value of £28,000. When the average annual wage in Scotland is £25,000, I think that says quite a lot. It is beyond tragic that someone in his position—his two elected positions, and being Leader of the Opposition in Scotland—has got himself into such a scenario, but it serves to inform us all about just how blasé the Tory party is when it comes to rules, regulations and the potential for financial gain. I am not saying that the MSP, or MP, for Moray is corrupt, because that would be unparliamentary, but when we consider the circles he moves in, we perhaps have pause for thought. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not sure how au fait you are with the goings on in Scottish football over the years, but if there was ever a second job that was apt and tailor-made for a politician with fewer scruples, it would indeed be as a match official with the Scottish Football Association. I say that with my tongue firmly in my cheek, of course, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let us compare and contrast that with my constituents’ experiences—those living in the real world. Lucy was working two jobs during the pandemic, one in a vulnerable children’s home and one delivering care to the elderly in their own home. She was working two part-time jobs just to make ends meet. One of her employers—and well done to them —paid all staff a bonus for their hard work and commitment during the pandemic of £300. As she was a single parent in receipt of universal credit, this Tory Government, and their poorly devised policies, stole Lucy’s bonus right out of her back pocket and left her £75 worse off that month overall. But we are all in this together, remember! With politics it is often about optics and how things look, but with the Tories it now seems it disnae matter how bad it looks, it is about what they can get away with.
This job as an elected representative is an immense honour for me, as I am sure it is for many of us. When  I was elected to North Lanarkshire Council in 2015, I resigned from my job in the private sector. I was only coming from a shopfloor into an elected chamber, but none the less I resigned, because morally that was the correct thing to do. After I was elected to this place in December 2019, I resigned my seat on North Lanarkshire Council early the following February, to ensure my full dedication to the people of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. It is all about the optics but it is also about the morality of the situation.
It is about time that we as MPs—all of us—and, indeed, all elected officials throughout the UK take a long, hard look at ourselves and question whether we are truly committed to our constituents or there are ulterior motives at play. If it is the former—and I do think that in the vast majority of cases it is—it is now time for us to show it by voting for the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

John Penrose: I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar)—although I  reached a very different conclusion—about the Prime Minister’s having been forced to respond to a question about whether this is a corrupt country by saying that of course it is not. He was quite right to say that but it is very concerning that he was forced to.
I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), who said that his speech was “a cry of pain” and that it is likely to be worse tomorrow than it was yesterday. I think everybody felt rather downbeat when he sat down after his speech, but I want to reassure him that there are more things that we can do and that I hope we will do. I have a list of possible further steps that I hope the Government will take, in addition to the proposals they have made today, to make sure that in future my hon. Friend does not have to give another speech that is a cry of pain.
The crucial thing is that strengthening standards in public life is, yes, about second jobs—of course, they are core to this issue—but it is also about a great deal more than just whether or not parliamentarians have second jobs and what kinds of jobs they may or may not have. We have to fix that, but that will not be nearly enough on its own, so I come with a modest shopping list of proposals that I hope people throughout the House would be willing to pick up and look at on a cross-party basis. I do, though, of course speak in favour of the Government’s amendment to the motion.
The first additional measure is directly in line with parliamentary standards and backs up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), who serves on the Standards Committee. Last week, he made a powerful speech arguing that the process of delivering parliamentary standards needs to be cleaned up, further tightened and improved. He drew particular parallels with the process in place to deal with the problem of and cases of bullying in this place, which I am sure everybody present would agree is unacceptable in the extreme. He argues that we should take some of what is already established in that process and bring it across to apply more broadly in respect of other aspects of parliamentary standards. My hon. Friend has made that point repeatedly to the Chairman of the Standards Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—who is no longer in his place—to the extent that I think the Chairman winces when he sees my hon. Friend coming because he knows what he is going to say. I see other Committee members present and hope that in future the Committee will take that up on a cross-party basis as a potentially important tightening of the rules.
That is not the only thing that we can and perhaps should do. There are rules about disclosure in respect of ministerial meetings and lobbying. The problem with the existing rules is not that they are not beneficial, sensible or absolutely necessary, but that they do not disclose nearly enough, nearly fast enough. We should make sure that ministerial meetings with anybody, but particularly with somebody who might be lobbying for a commercial interest or for an entirely non-commercial interest—there are plenty of non-commercial interests out there that may be beneficial or may indeed be harmful and seek to slant the playing field—are disclosed. It is vital not only that we know who was met—who came to talk to a Minister—but that we understand in some detail what the topic was and whose interest was ultimately being represented. It should not just apply to Ministers, either; it should apply to senior members of  the civil service, not just permanent secretaries, and special political advisers in government. All are people who have a say and important roles in the process, so they should be harnessed in our disclosure rules. Otherwise, we are missing an important piece of the jigsaw.
Further, we need to strengthen the role of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments—or ACOBA as it is called. There are some good proposals in both the Boardman report and in the recent Standards Matter 2 report from Lord Evans’s Committee, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which say that we should make sure that Ministers’ commitments are made enforceable in law through a legal deed. I would certainly support such a measure. I would also go further and argue that ACOBA should have a further look at whether some of the individual departmental rules of compliance with parts of the civil service code are being applied strongly and rigorously enough, because it is clear that, in some Departments, it is applied much more strongly than in others.
Finally, two pieces of legislation go right to the core of standards in our public life. The first one is about Government contracts. There is a procurement Bill currently on the stocks, which I devoutly hope will be introduced very, very soon. It replaces the old and clunky Official Journal of the European Union on how to do procurement with, in principle, a much faster, more digital, and much more open and transparent process. That is necessary and I hope that it will come forward very promptly, because it will mean that, if we have another national emergency like the one that we have just faced in the covid pandemic, our systems will be better able to cope with the pressure than the old and clunky system that we inherited from the EU.
The final piece of legislation that I devoutly hope will come forward very soon with a date attached is an economic crime Bill. I am looking directly at the Leader of the House as I say this, because he will be in charge of the timetabling. The Bill would make sure that we know not only who is behind each and every company—whether they are Scottish limited partnerships or any others—but who is getting the benefit, which means that those involved will not be able to hide. It is absolutely essential that that transparency is introduced as fast as it possibly can be.

Catherine McKinnell: One thing on which we can all agree today is what a sorry state of affairs it is that we are having to debate how to strengthen standards in public life. We need to be clear on how we got here, because this was coming a lot earlier than the vote on Owen Paterson and the Government’s decision to reject the Standards Committee’s report and findings into his activities.
In our system of parliamentary government, it has, quite rightly, been the convention that Ministers are accountable to Parliament for the actions of their Departments, but the current Conservative Government seem to take a somewhat different view. They have been content to close ranks to protect political allies from accountability and see no problem in hanging departmental officials out to dry for policy failures, deflecting blame and avoiding ministerial responsibility.
It was telling that when the Business Secretary was asked to name a single thing that the Prime Minister had done to deliver integrity and probity in public life, he was unable to do so. The best he could come up with was to say that the Conservative manifesto pledge to leave the EU had been delivered. What a low bar this Government have set when they find delivery of one of their election pledges somehow remarkable—good grief. The truth is that, while the Prime Minister says he believes in high standards in public life, his actions too often demonstrate the opposite.
When the Home Secretary was accused of bullying civil servants, the Prime Minister rejected the findings of his independent adviser, effectively forcing his resignation. When the Government ignored repeated warnings over last year’s GCSE and A-level results, it was senior officials at Ofqual and the Department for Education, not the Education Secretary, who took the rap for that inevitable fiasco. By saying that he considered the matter closed as soon as the former Health and Social Care Secretary was found to have breached covid rules, the Prime Minister seriously undermined the ministerial code.

Taiwo Owatemi: On the issue of Ministers breaking the code, last weekend The Sunday Times wrote about a Transport Minister who allegedly misused taxpayers’ money?

Rosie Winterton: Has the hon. Lady notified the Member concerned that she will be referring to them?

Taiwo Owatemi: Sorry, he is a Secretary of State.

Rosie Winterton: But has she notified the Member that she will be referring to them?

Taiwo Owatemi: I should have done that. I will double check.

Rosie Winterton: Okay. The hon. Lady needs to be quite careful about how she approaches it then.

Taiwo Owatemi: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last Sunday, The Sunday Times reported that the Transport Secretary misused taxpayers’ money by blocking the redevelopment of airfields. This would affect my local airfield in Coventry, which is meant to be redeveloped as a gigafactory that would bring thousands of jobs to my city of Coventry. Does my hon. Friend agree that senior Conservative Ministers should spend less time abusing their position and more—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I think that we have got the point.

Catherine McKinnell: I think that we could all raise example upon example of this Government’s saying, “Do as I say but not as I do”, and not following through on their promises.
It is difficult to imagine 10 or 20 years ago a Government unlawfully proroguing Parliament without even the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House resigning, or at least having the decency to admit that they were wrong. It is unclear what the Prime Minister thinks that he, his  Ministers and sometimes his MPs should be held accountable for, if anything at all. For our system of accountability to work, we need the Government to be open and willing to learn from their mistakes. The deterioration in standards that is happening under this Government is not only morally wrong; it is the opposite of good governance. Covering for incompetence or corruption—and sometimes both simultaneously—can only lead to poor leadership and bad policy, which harms the people we are elected to represent. The scapegoating of unelected officials when things go wrong must stop.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the Chair of the Standards Committee, put it well last week when he reminded the House that parliamentary democracy in its present form has not been around for long at all. It is fragile and precious, and must be protected from Governments who seek to undermine it for their own short-term gain. The Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Lord Evans, clearly anticipated this danger when he said:
“The risk is that we think it couldn’t possibly happen in this country. The fact is it could, and that is why we need to make sure we don’t take decisions which would lead us in the wrong direction”.
I will finish by quoting President Lyndon Johnson, who famously said, “It takes a carpenter to build a barn, but any jackass can knock it down”. I know that I am not alone in my deep concerns about the long-term impact on our democracy of a Government who all too frequently act with no sense of decency, dignity or shame.

David Johnston: My remarks will probably follow in the vein of those of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker). I have no outside interests or earnings, so in one sense, no matter how strict the rules are, this is not going to affect me directly.
I have never been persuaded by the argument that some Members used to earn a lot more elsewhere and therefore need to be able to earn more here; I think we all know what the salary is when we become MPs. There is a better argument about outside interests bringing skills and expertise to the House, particularly—although not just—from a field in which the Member operated before, as doing so probably helps to improve our legislation. However, we can tighten the rules. It should go without saying that our constituencies should come first and foremost, and I do think that that is what the vast majority of us spend the vast majority of our time on.
I have said many times, away from this place, that when I went from being a charity chief exec to being an MP in 2019, I went from saint to sinner in the minds of the public. Someone who works for a charity is seen as one of the good guys: honest; principled; in it for the right reasons. Politicians are seen as the opposite: dishonest; unprincipled; in it for themselves. Both caricatures are wrong.
I accept that some Members of this House have questions to answer about their outside interests. I personally think that a lot of what they are being accused of is breaking the existing rules. I am perfectly happy to accept that we need to change some of the rules. We will never banish bad behaviour. Every workplace has rules, because it knows that people will behave inappropriately from time to time. That is true of absolutely anywhere.
However, I have a number of concerns about the way this debate—not in this House, apart from a bit at the start of this debate, but the debate more generally in the past couple of weeks—has been going. First, there is the divide between private sector and public sector. We have had the commentary from some Opposition Members that somehow if it is a public sector job, that is good; if it is a private sector job, that is bad. About one in six people in the country work in the public sector. They are not all on wards and in classrooms—they are often in offices, like the vast majority of people who are also providing a good service to the country, just not publicly funded. I cannot see why someone could be a paid director of an NHS trust—because they always are paid positions—but could not be a paid director of a company that was providing medicines or equipment to that NHS trust. I cannot see why someone could be involved in a law firm if it was defending public clients but not if it was defending anybody else. We are sending a bad message to the vast majority of people who do not work in the public sector about the sorts of jobs and the sorts of organisations they work in.
Secondly, right now there are Opposition activists saying that this is all about the Conservatives and Conservatives saying, “You’ve got a problem too.” But what are the public saying? They are saying, “You’re all at it—you’re all the same.” I accept that politics means that Labour thinks it has a winning issue here, but I do not think any of us are truly winning in what has been going on in recent weeks.
Thirdly, the charities I ran were all about improving social mobility, so I spent a lot of time thinking about who gets into politics—the proportion who are from private school, who are graduates, who are wealthy, who have done nothing but politics, or who had to do unpaid internships, which were rife in this place, in order to get their foot on the ladder. I am concerned that we should have more people from ordinary backgrounds and more people with disabilities. We should make this place more family-friendly. That is a challenge right now for people with children; it is putting off those who have them who are thinking about going into politics. If we are going to make changes to this place, there is a whole range of changes that are probably more pressing, and I would like to bind them up together, because there is a lot that we could reform.
Finally, we have a responsibility to think about the politicians who come after us. We are not all the same. We are not all at it. The vast majority of us obey all the rules. It is very tough to persuade talented people to consider politics because of the hours, the abuse, and the increasing personal risk that we seem to be at. The association with the expenses scandal persists, although the majority of us were not even in the House at that time and the system has completely changed. When we push the line that MPs are all trying to get as much money as they can and the only way that we can stop them and get them to focus on their constituents is to have new rules that make them do so, we do ourselves and our politics a disservice. I am perfectly open-minded about the rule changes that we need to make. My most important test is, “Are we obeying all the rules that are there?” I really care about how politics and politicians are viewed, and what we are doing at the moment in saying, “My party’s a bit better than your party”, is making the public’s view of all of us worse.

Justin Madders: As the Leader of the House mentioned in his opening remarks: country, constituency, party, in that order, no more, no less—those are whom a Member of Parliament has a duty towards. It is a formulation so simple that anyone ought to be able to understand it. It was certainly the basis on which I stood for election to this place, and nothing I have seen in the intervening six years has led me to believe that I was wrong to think that. Indeed, I am proud to represent my country, my constituency and my party. But my pride turns to shame when I see headline after headline about hon. and right hon. Members not treating the position they hold or the people they represent with the respect they deserve because they turn themselves into political cabs for hire. When Members put themselves up for sale, they may enrich themselves but they cheapen us all.
Being a Member of Parliament is a great privilege, but it is also a great responsibility. We need to be conscious of the fact that having the letters “MP” after our names gives us a certain authority, and that is because we are the democratically elected representatives—we make the laws; what we say matters. I would have liked to have said that those letters command respect and gravitas, but the sad reality is that when an MP speaks, people often ask, “Just who are you speaking for?” It is the greatest privilege of my life to be able to stand up in here and speak freely without fear or favour on matters that are important to my constituents. That we can no longer assume that is the case for everyone demeans us all.
Some people will argue that taking away the ability of Members to earn a bit of extra cash as a consultant or lobbyist will reduce the pool of talent of those seeking to enter Parliament, but they should take a look in the mirror. Those who take the shilling from those that are willing to pay for a voice in this place should not kid themselves that it is their wisdom or charisma that attracts the cash in the first place; it is their access that matters. This place should not be available to the highest bidder; this place should be a force for good and for change for the benefit of all. If it is a choice between someone who might be a slightly better orator but whose main motivation is money, and someone who is here because they want to make a difference, I know who I would want to be my MP and I know who will be a more effective parliamentarian in the long run. If people are put off because of the limitations this role might put on their earning potential, perhaps they might want to consider whether this job is really for them.
This is not all about individual avarice; it is about the tone set from the top and leadership. When we have a Government who, as they did last week, try to overturn established and agreed procedures to let one of their own off the hook, we are faced with a Government who have become intoxicated on their own power, become arrogant because of the size of their majority and grown contemptuous of the need for probity. None of those things is good for the Government, but they are damaging to us all, as many Members have said. These things erode what little trust the public have in our parliamentary democracy.
There is no shortage of people out there who are only too willing to call us all out for being motivated solely by personal gain. We do not need to give them dozens  of examples of Members appearing to do just that. We need to govern in the public interest and show that standards in public life matter and that when it comes to our duties to our constituents, we must lead, not follow.
The Government’s defence for the shameful shambles we have seen over the past week is that they were concerned about the supposed lack of an appeals process and that they made a mistake in trying to conflate those issues with the concerns in the case of Owen Paterson. But what he did was so obviously wrong that I have to question just how the Government are operating. The Register of Members’ Financial Interests is there. It is plain to see what he was getting paid and by whom, but did it not occur to anyone in Government that when he was doing all this lobbying he was actually breaking the rules? Did nobody think to challenge him, feed it back to the Whips or just say, “Sorry this conversation is not going to happen”? Or is it the case, as I suspect it is, that this kind of thing is just par for the course and nobody questioned him about it because it is seen as how MPs and Government operate? If there is a grain of truth in that, we need to do an awful lot more about this than just what we are discussing today.
All I would say in respect of the claim that there was no appeal is that there was an appeal process, but he was so obviously guilty of the charges that a dozen appeals would not have changed the outcome. If Government Members are now so concerned about the operation of natural justice and appeals, they might want to start looking at how some Departments operate. Many of my constituents would question where their opportunity is to appeal in areas such as benefits over- payments, child maintenance and the loan charge. They would say it is one rule for Tory MPs and one rule for everyone else, and they would be right.
In conclusion, we are the rule makers; how we conduct ourselves matters. Parliament should be an exemplar of good practice and positive behaviours, of probity and of standards for others to look up to and emulate. If we cannot get our own house in order, how can we effectively challenge other countries, companies or individuals? I hope that Members will vote for our motion today. I am afraid that there is so much wriggle room within the Government amendment that it resembles a pit of snakes, which I am afraid is what some people see us all as. We know that the majority of Members are not like that, but kicking the can down the road, as the Government would have us do, simply leaves too much room for doubt that we are not serious about stamping out the egregious use of this office that we hold so dear and that the principle of transparency does not matter at all.
The rules should be followed by everyone. If we in this place avoid the rules when they become inconvenient, how can we expect the public to follow them, too? Sadly, there have been too many examples over the past year of Members thinking that the rules do not apply to them. How difficult is it to put a face covering on? The very fact that the merits of that simple act are beyond some Members gives us an indication that some people just do not think the rules apply to them.

Anthony Browne: I am speaking today not because I take any pleasure in taking part in this debate, but because I truly believe  that strengthening standards in public life is one of the most important issues facing us. I actually welcome the fact that the Labour party has secured this important debate.
I should start with a declaration of interest in that I used to be a Lobby journalist. I was chief political correspondent of The Times, and one of the “feral beasts”, as Tony Blair used to call us. I used to write stories about standards in this place when rows erupted. Standards rows are very good for political journalists—they give us good work and get us on the front pages—but they are very bad for trust in democracy. I think it is very important that we do everything we can to raise standards to make sure that Lobby correspondents and political journalists have nothing to write about in this place.
There is something else I learned when I was Europe editor of The Times and was responsible for covering European politics, and this comes back to the points my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) was making. A former Labour Cabinet Minister—let us call Peter Mandelson, because that was his name—who had resigned not just once, but twice, from the Cabinet over financial-related scandals, got appointed by Tony Blair as a European Commissioner. He came to give evidence to the European Parliament, and all the journalists from other countries came up to me really excited to know why this man had had to resign from Cabinet not just once, but twice. I told them why—we do not need to rehearse that here—and those from lots of different countries said to me, “What, you mean he got no personal gain from public funds? Then it is not corruption, so why did he have to resign?” Even the German journalists, and we think of German politics as having very high standards, said that there was no way somebody doing what he had done would have to resign in Germany. So we do have very high standards in public life here already. We are very good at talking ourselves down as a country, and I think there is a risk that we unfairly undermine trust in politics.
It is important that we have high standards, and it is important that we have even higher standards. One of the things I welcome about this debate is that there is actually cross-party consensus that we need to raise standards in public life. The motion brought forward by the Labour party and the amendment brought forward by the Prime Minister are, in substance, very similar, although there are differences that I will come to.
I truly support recommendation 10 in the 2018 Committee on Standards in Public Life report, “MPs’ Outside Interests”, on banning payment and jobs for political and parliamentary consultancy. That is because we cannot be a gamekeeper and a poacher at the same time. When we are in this House—deciding what to say in debates, deciding what meetings to have, going to meetings with Ministers and so on—we are serving only one paymaster, and that is our constituents. There should be no conflict in our role.
We cannot have a situation in which MPs have discussions with a Minister—I have had a couple of meetings with Ministers already today—where they talk to us about different policy areas and things they are doing, and MPs then go and sell that information to some outside interest. When we are here acting as MPs, we should serve only our constituents. Actually, I am sympathetic to having outside roles, for the arguments that others have rehearsed, but I absolutely agree that we should stop political and parliamentary consultancy.
I also support recommendation 1, which the Prime Minister has called for, which is that MPs should not have outside work that is not within reasonable limits. That is common sense. The question mark with both recommendation 10 and recommendation 1 is actually how we define it, and various hon. Members have talked about that. I think it is absolutely right that this goes to the parliamentary Committee on Standards—its Chair, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), spoke earlier—to define the real details and get cross-party consensus on how we do that in a way that is completely enforceable and reasonable.
I have mentioned that I have some reservations about the Labour motion. One is that it does not mention recommendation 1, while the Government amendment includes recommendation 1 and recommendation 10. In fact, the Labour party motion covers only recommendation 10, and actually talks only about parliamentary consultancy, not political consultancy. Although people may think they are the same; they are actually different, and we do not want to clamp down just on parliamentary consultancy and not political consultancy. That is why I fully support the Prime Minister’s amendment, which I think is a lot more robust and more wide-ranging. It has two different recommendations, not just one, and also covers political consultancy, and that is why I will support it.

Martin Docherty: It is good to follow the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne). What gets me about this entire debate is that there are probably Members in here who would, as they say in some parts, go “total tonto” about me not wearing a tie, but who would not blink an eye at an unregistered £6 million in personal loans, or £28,000 of extracurricular activity in other Parliaments. It is not just about the Government Benches, I have to say. There are those on the Opposition Benches, for example, who are exposed for taking payment for non-parliamentary work while they were actually in their parliamentary offices. So it is about the entire House, not just the dodgy dealings of the Government.
There has been much mention about the former Member for North Shropshire, but perhaps we should have seen this coming, given that when they were sacked from the Government in 2014 they were, in a quote from Martin Williams of openDemocracy, “ringing round” for a second job. Luckily, the companies that they were ringing round saw it for what it was and said, “No thanks very much. We don’t have anything on the books at the moment.”
Then there are the other Members. I have informed them that I will name them, but an MP with a major financial interest in a company that sells insurance to pay for care services seeks via an amendment to the health and social care levy—to quote the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) themselves in public—to
“create incentives for investment into some kind of modern insurance scheme.”
No wonder the former Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life clearly stated that
“The rules of procedure would clearly require him—
the Member for Yeovil—
“to explain what his interest is in this matter.”
So yes, I think that would be a breach of the code, particularly where he is seeking with an amendment to influence Government policy. He is clearly duty bound,  as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, to declare any interest he has in the matter. Perhaps he has. Again, as I have said, I have informed the Member. Again, I am grateful to Caroline Molloy of openDemocracy for that exposé of the nefarious workings of this place.
If we look north to Scotland and the Scottish Parliament, we find another Conservative Member, a regional MSP, who states in the paper this week that being an MSP, or an MP actually should be a part-time job. Extraordinary! That MSP even goes on to say that they think the Lords is not in need of reform—I will come to that in a minute. I tend to agree with an acquaintance of mine who stated that that was like saying—and we must understand the electoral methods of a PR Parliament—“I never made the tiniest effort to win a seat without saying ‘I never made the tiniest effort in trying to win a seat’.” That is basically what that Member was saying. I am sure that even new Scottish Ministers in the upper Chamber do not fail to recognise that their not being elected by the electorate at the last Scottish Parliament and then being thrown into the House of Lords is an absolute affront to the democratic will of the people of Scotland. It is really political patronage.
I am disappointed that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), who is in the Chamber, has not been selected because it gets to the nub of the privilege of being an unelected and unaccountable Member of the House of warmers—that is a parliamentary term, as I am sure Hansard will point out. I am also disappointed with the shadow Leader of the House for not agreeing that that would be a way forward to end cash for honours.
I notice we have had some consensus on this side about opposing the Government’s change or creation of a new Committee in the House. I wish we could come to some consensus and stop appointing members to an unelected, unaccountable Chamber. That way we might get quicker reform of it, especially the utilisation of Scottish limited partnerships to fund political parties, which actually fill it with their own grandees and appointees.

Angus MacNeil: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is easy to get rid of the stench of corruption, or perceived corruption even, of cash for honours: the three party leaders who appoint to the House of Lords could simply say that they will not put in the Lords those who have donated over a certain sum of money over a certain period of time—perhaps £50,000 over five years?

Martin Docherty: I agree with my hon. Friend. I would go further. I would get rid of it. Just abolish it. What is the point of an unelected, unaccountable Chamber? We could have an elected one, or an enhanced Chamber of the House of Commons, where we can tell Ministers that they have to come to a Committee meeting because the House demands they come to it and will drag them to it. That is more or less what the Scottish Parliament does. We have a unicameral Chamber that has profound powers and can drag people to a parliamentary Committee, under oath, I would think. That is surely what this House should be asking for if you are a democrat and believe in democracy. Get rid of that lot.
As a Scot representing a Scottish constituency I also find it an affront that members of the English episcopy have more to say over the affairs of my constituents than I do on many occasions. It is a real pity. Although I am going to support the Opposition motion, it is disappointing that we cannot come to some consensus about the nefarious ability of big donors to utilise the unelected Chamber to change policy and change issues that impact my constituents across Clydebank, Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven—people who need to work two, three or four jobs just to keep their heads above water.
What about members of staff working in this very House who travel miles from across the south of England to work in low-paid jobs to work with Members and to make sure they have a a decent day’s work, while they all have two jobs paying them millions of pounds? What does that say to people in this place who work two or three jobs just to keep their heads above water? It is a parcel of rogues in a nation and in a Parliament. Quite frankly, the time for this obfuscation and saying that we will just tooter aboot while the place crumbles about is done. Get done with it. Stop it. No more second jobs. Get rid of the House of Lords. And that way we can actually look our constituents in the eye.

Mark Fletcher: I once again declare my interest as a member of the Standards Committee, which seems to be gaining more responsibilities and notoriety every day.
Lord Bew’s introductory letter to the 2018 report that we have been discussing asks:
“most importantly, how can MPs and Parliament build and promote greater public trust?”
In essence, that is the most relevant question for today’s debate.
Most Members of this House are aware that a significant percentage—perhaps even a majority—of the public distrust and dislike MPs. Irrespective of party, voting record or character, we are all tarred with the same broad strokes of being corrupt, liars, on the take, useless and lazy. The headlines of the past few weeks are not particularly shocking to the public; they simply reinforce what many people already feel. However much we know that most Members of this House are good people and hard-working MPs, that is not reflected in the outside world. We should keep that very much in mind.
I understand that, as it stands, the Opposition feel emboldened. They feel that they are on the moral high ground and playing smart politics with today’s debate and motion. I caution them, however, that they are not showing leadership or principle today; they are demonstrating opportunism. The tone of the opening remarks and some of the other speeches made today do this House no credit at all. If they seriously wanted to help improve trust in our politics, they would be working across this House and with the Standards Committee, rather than instructing it, to seek substantial improvements. They would dial down the rhetoric and stop the mud- slinging, because some of the things that I have heard both in this House and elsewhere in recent days are unsubstantiated and have not been investigated.

Angus MacNeil: Have the last 18 people  who have given £3 million to the Conservative party found their way into the House of Lords or not? Is that unsubstantiated?

Mark Fletcher: I think that point about the Lords was answered by the Leader of the House earlier, and I think he made the position very clear.
I am personally very sympathetic to paragraph (1) of the Opposition motion, which is also covered in the Government’s amendment. I am afraid that my support does not extend to paragraphs (2) and (3). If the Committee on Standards is to be tasked with drawing up proposals for this House on such a serious matter, we should be free to take evidence, discuss the implications involved and ensure that there are no unintended consequences, as my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), who is no longer in his place, set out earlier.
The broadest point in today’s debate is: should MPs be allowed to have second jobs? I am sure that, instinctively, most people would say absolutely not. But if we ask, “Should a nurse or doctor be allowed to practise?” the answer is yes. Should a Member be allowed to be a Minister, a Parliamentary Private Secretary, a trade envoy or a Whip? The answer, again, is yes. What about writing a book or a newspaper column, as many Members do and for which they receive payment? The initial binary choice is not so simple. It is a matter of judgment and a judgment call. The history of this House encouraged Members to have other professions. The House and its workings have obviously evolved over time, but it has often been considered a virtue to have people from different walks of life in this House, including from different professions. It is perfectly legitimate, under the current rules of this House, for people in professions to continue to practise as long as it is properly declared. Ultimately, it is a judgment call for us as MPs and our bosses, the electorate, as to whether we are doing the right or wrong thing.
Again, I am very sympathetic to the point about banning political consultancy and advisory roles, but we must be clear about the wider context in which this debate is happening and explain clearly the choices that need to be made. As the 2018 Committee on Standards in Public Life report, “MPs’ Outside Interests” states:
“Any strengthening of the regulation of MPs’ outside interests needs to consider the potential for unintended consequences on the diversity of careers and backgrounds of MPs.”
We need to be very careful about what we are doing. The same report goes on to recommend that
“Any outside activity undertaken by a MP, whether remunerated or unremunerated, should be within reasonable limits and should not prevent them from fully carrying out their range of duties”.
That is recommendation 1, which is mentioned in the Government’s amendment. I have to say that I find it slightly troublesome because I think that that part of the report is a bit of a cop-out. It is far from clear what “reasonable” means or what a reasonable principle means. As the Chair of the Standards Committee and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said earlier, that would leave the Committee and the commissioner in the very unenviable position of defining reasonableness. I will be supporting the Government tonight, but I encourage them to tread carefully when it comes to reasonableness and the principles they are asking us to uphold.
It is important to put one other matter on record. It is the duty of the Standards Committee in every Session of Parliament to review the code of conduct. That has been somewhat overdue in the last few Sessions because  we have had elections so quickly. Some of these issues may not have come up if we had not had so many elections in recent years.
I return to trust. There is much we can do to help to improve trust in this House and our democracy, but rushing to hasty judgments, airing unsubstantiated rumours and treating them as facts, and opportunistically trying to bring in rules without wider consultation and proper process will not help. I very much welcome the enthusiasm of both Front Benches to improve standards in this House, but encourage all of them to work together with the Standards Committee, rather than trying to play one-upmanship on who is setting the agenda. If we continue down that route, we will end up with rules that do not work, a standards system that simply cannot cope, and even more distrust from the public than we face already.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. Before we move on, I am trying to ensure that everybody gets six minutes. I need to point out that while I have no objection to people taking interventions, if they still stick to the six minutes it means that others will be able to get equal time. I also urge those who have already spoken to bear in mind that, if they make further interventions, they are reducing others’ time. Obviously, some Members have made a number of interventions. Just bear in mind that we are trying to make it fair for everybody.

Tan Dhesi: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. My gratitude also goes to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), the shadow Leader of the House, for bringing forward this motion, and to the Labour Front-Bench team for taking steps to clean up and improve standards in this House, when the Prime Minister is so clearly failing in this matter.
I fear that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), who I am following, may not like my speech, but I think that certain things need to be said and it is also a fact that the truth hurts. In 2018, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that Members should be banned from any paid work to provide services as a
“Parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant”.
That, frankly, is long overdue.
Sadly, we really should not be surprised. The sordid events of recent weeks have exposed just how endemic cronyism, corruption and nepotism is in the Conservative party. That has continued because there have been no consequences for certain MPs’ immoral actions and they know that even if formal, independent action is levelled against them, the Prime Minister will simply come to their rescue.
Calling the past few weeks a shambles would be a gross understatement. A Conservative Member who repeatedly failed to uphold standards and was a paid advocate for a private company had his punishment overturned by his own Conservative MPs on the Prime Minister’s say-so. There was then a U-turn less than 24 hours after the vote, followed by our Prime Minister having to proclaim on an international stage that we are not corrupt. This seems to set a grim precedent for our  country and our Parliament. We simply cannot sit back and accept that elected representatives can be purchased—bought by the highest bidder—to do private companies’ and lobbyists’ bidding, influencing the highest echelons of Government. We deserve so much better. The British public deserve so much better.
Like many elected to this House, representing my constituency has been and continues to be the biggest honour of my life, but unfortunately, that simply does not seem to be the case for all MPs. How else would we explain the staggering £8 million earned by Conservative MPs in addition to their salary? Yes, £8 million—I know that that will come as a huge surprise not only to the wider British public, but to many of us sitting in this House. How could constituents possibly fit into the busy schedules of those MPs who are working as lawyers for weeks on end, sitting in the Caribbean, or as consultants, chairs of boards and lobbyists?
To set the record straight for the benefit of the good people of Slough, who elected me to represent them, my only paid job is as the MP for Slough. I do not have any second, third or fourth jobs, and I reassure the British public that not all of us are here to line our pockets. We are here to serve our country and our society, to do the right thing and to make a positive difference. Being an elected Member of this Parliament should be an opportunity to represent the diverse and varied constituencies of our nations and not to use our privileged position to line our pockets.
One of my gravest concerns is that the sleazy behaviour in recent weeks has eroded the public trust and belief in Parliament irreparably. We must do our utmost to rapidly restore trust. The events of recent weeks have also lifted the veil on the open secret that many who come to this Chamber are here doing their least lucrative job, hiding the hundreds of thousands that they earn in plain sight because it has always been that way.
Even as the Prime Minister’s last-minute plans emerge, it seems that they are characteristically weak and full of loopholes, allowing that practice largely to continue. It is said that a week is a long time in politics but it is incredible that, within 24 hours, after having forced his Tory MPs to vote to protect his paid lobbyist friend—using them as voting fodder—he did a screeching U-turn and marched them straight down the hill after the huge public outcry against the shameless covering up of Tory corruption. How betrayed and let down those Conservative MPs must feel by their Prime Minister—a mini Trump who has not only a severe revulsion for the truth and integrity, but a loathing for the rules, standards and values that make our democracy so special.
To restore public trust, we need transparency, and we must stop the relentless Tory sleaze and corruptive practices eroding our democracy. Let us focus on why we are really here: to serve our constituents, ensure that their voices are heard and make a real change to people’s lives.

Bob Seely: I am sure that I will not take up all six minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher). Last week, my hon. Friend gave one of the best speeches that I have heard in this House in recent years; he said that
“two years here is more than enough to know the difference between right and wrong.”—[Official Report, 8 November 2021; Vol. 703, c. 67.]
I completely agree. I think that this House has a new beast of Bolsover, and he is a rather improved version of what came before.
I will make just three brief points, if I may. First, the Government have apologised. I am delighted that the Leader of the House is here and there has been a certain amount of eating humble pie. I did not support the Government motion two weeks ago; I do support banning MPs from being political consultants, because there is so much of a grey area. Even with the best will in the world, it is too easy to blur the line into paid advocacy and the ethical problems that come from it. The only political consultant I want to be is for the folks on the Isle of the Wight, and frankly the only lobbying I want to be doing is on their behalf. That is what I will do in this House, rather than taking on paid consultancies, which are ethically just so concerning.
I understand the political dimension, but when we have a main Opposition party spending £2 million a year on lawyers because of a disastrous and illegal anti-semitism scandal, and when, sadly, some Opposition Members have ended up with jail sentences, we cannot approach the issue from a partisan point of view. We get a sewer over all of us, and actually, at the end of the day, it does not really work. It is a much better reflection  on Opposition Members if they try to come up with suggestions that do not imply that everyone here is corrupt and on the take, because really that does not quite work.
The critical point is about foreign lobbying. I am delighted that the Leader of the House is here, because I want to talk to the House about that important subject. We need a FOLO—a foreign lobbying Act—in this country. With our foreign lobbying laws, the reason there are not more scandals is that it is actually quite difficult to break the law. A consultant lobbyist has to register, but what about a company, an upmarket law firm, a reputation launderer or an upmarket PR firm?
There is an astonishing, vast amount of frankly very sleazy lobbying, not only of parliamentarians, but of civil servants, former civil servants, former special advisers, former policy advisers to both sides of the House—it was happening under new Labour, and it happens here as well—and universities. We have seen how much damage Cambridge University has experienced as a result not only of a vacuous approach to critical theory and critical gender and race theory, but of a morally vacuous approach to taking money from China.
None of this is being registered anywhere, because we simply do not have a foreign lobbying Act. The Americans have had a foreign lobbying Act since 1938; in those days, it was to guard against covert Nazi influence, and clearly it has evolved from there. The only reason—I am going to criticise my own side now—that we found out about the good Lord Barker’s work for the Putin oligarch Oleg Deripaska was that he had to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act in the United States. Australia has gone down a similar route with its Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act, because of the threat of covert Chinese money.
We should be setting an example here. As Members of Parliament, ultimately the buck stops with us. As well as the political drama that we have seen from  Opposition Members, we need to think about corruption in an advanced society, in which officials and special advisers have a great deal of power and think-tanks can influence things and have a great deal of power. That all matters. I wrote a report on it with the Henry Jackson Society—I declare, just out of interest, that I did not take any payment from the society, in case folks are asking. The Government must not only look at the issues that they are confronting now and the points raised eloquently on both sides of the House, but look wider.
I was going to touch on other issues, but I do not have time. Privilege, the use of artificial reality and the problems that that may cause in a democracy in the coming years, politically motivated bankruptcy—there are lots of interesting issues in the field. Either as part of an espionage Bill or separately, we must get to grips with foreign lobbying and its power in this country. We must understand that it does not involve just Members of Parliament.

Deidre Brock: The hon. Member speaks about moral vacuity and lobbying loopholes. Many thousands of pounds have gone to the Conservative and Unionist party from unincorporated associations such as the Scottish Unionist Association Trust, but loopholes in electoral law disguise the identity of the original donors. Would the hon. Member support that loophole being closed off in the Elections Bill?

Bob Seely: That is a great question. I support any closing of any loophole that increases transparency and puts pressure on questionable ethical behaviour—including that of Alex Salmond in working for Russia Today, of which I think we should all be very ashamed, given that RT is a mouthpiece—I thank Members for nodding—for Russian authoritarianism. Sadly, a former leader of the hon. Lady’s party is working for it. I typed “SNP scandal” while I was listening to the debate, and there is a very long list, but we will not go there.
I promised not to take up too much time, so I will just say this. I congratulate the Government on moving. Clearly it has not been a great fortnight for any of us, but I would very much like us to look at the important issue of foreign lobbying in this country and in this Parliament.

Alex Sobel: Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank the previous occupant of the Chair for guiding me in the conventions of the House. I did email the Member to whom I shall refer, but I can see that he—the Leader of the House—is in his place. I am not sure whether he read my email, but I am going to refer to him because last Sunday, on social media, I saw an article in the Mail. I am not an avid reader of the Mail—which may surprise Conservative Members!—but I opened and read the piece, and I was myself somewhat surprised by its contents. It is good that the Leader of the House is present, as he may wish to intervene and respond to some of my points.
According to the Mail, the Leader of the House
“borrowed up to £2.94 million a year in ‘director’s loans’ from his UK-based Saliston Ltd between 2018 and 2020.
Parliamentary rules require MPs to be ‘open and frank in drawing attention to any relevant interest’.
Although it does not explicitly cover director’s loans, the code of conduct requires directors to declare ‘taxable expenses, allowances and benefits’.
In the MPs’ Register of Interests, Mr Rees-Mogg disclosed himself as an ‘unremunerated director’ and shareholder of the firm, but did not say he had taken out the loans.
By using ‘director’s loans’—classed by the Government as a taxable benefit—he was able to borrow the large sum at very low interest.”
I will come to the details of that later.
The Leader of the House “insisted”—I assume directly to the Mail—that
“as the loans were not earnings, he was not required to declare them to Parliament and he had not broken any rules.”
He told the Mail that
“the 2018 loan was ‘primarily’ used to buy and refurbish his £5.6 million home in Westminster. He would not say what the rest of the money was for.
But a source in the Commons sleaze watchdog”—
that is the Mail’s language, not mine; I assume that it refers to the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—
“said the loans should ‘absolutely’ have been declared in the Register of Interests, adding: ‘The whole point of registration is the public should be able to know what is governing your decision-making and the actions that you take.’”
The Leader of the House, says the Mail,
“bought his house, formerly Tory HQ”.
On Twitter, Baron Leigh of Hurley, a former Conservative party treasurer, challenged me, saying that it was absolute rubbish that the house was formerly the Tory headquarters. If the Leader of the House wants to tell us that it was not, I shall be happy to apologise, but that is what is says in the Mail. It says that the Leader of the House bought the house
“in February 2018 using a mortgage with Coutts bank, Land Registry documents show.
The £6 million he took in loans includes £2.94 million in 2018, £2.3 million the following year and £701,513 in 2019-2020, Companies House documents reveal.
In the first year he paid no interest, in the second he paid £46,915 and in the final year £2,030—£48,945 in interest over three years, equivalent to a rate of 0.8 per cent.”
My constituents, when buying a house, would struggle to get an interest rate of 5%. It sounds like a benefit to me, although I might be wrong.
The Leader of the House, says the Mail,
“was a director of Saliston Ltd until he joined the Cabinet in July 2019, but retains a 100 per cent shareholding and is a ‘Person of Significant Control’…Saliston Ltd has previously been described as a ‘holding company’ by Mr Rees-Mogg.
“It has £8 million property assets”—
including a Mayfair house—
“and nearly £1 million in other investments.
“In 2018”—
I am particularly interested in this—
“it took out a £2.87 million bank loan…the same year it lent Mr Rees-Mogg £2.9 million.”
I do not know the interest rate at which it took out the bank loan, but we know the interest rate at which the Leader of the House repaid it. [Interruption.] I am happy to take an intervention from the Leader of the House at any point. Saliston Ltd has a controlling stake in Somerset   Capital Management LLP, the parent firm of Somerset Capital Management (Cayman) Ltd in the Cayman islands—an offshore entity.
I do not have much time, so I will come to the point; I would be fascinated to hear from the Leader of the House on this. He is quoted as saying:
“The loans from 2018 were primarily taken out for the purchase and refurbishment of [my home] as temporary cash flow measures.
All loans have either been repaid with interest in accordance with HMRC rules or paid as dividends and taxed accordingly.”
I worked out that, on a ministerial salary, it would take approximately 100 years to repay the loan.
However, this might be an explanation for how it happened:
“Somerset Capital Management LLP’s accounts show its limited-liability members were remunerated with £3.8 million in 2021.”
I do not know whether those two things were connected at all. I might be wrong; I am not an expert in complex financial instruments—[Interruption.] Yes, I am not, so if the Leader of the House wants to intervene and correct me, I am happy to let him, because unfortunately I have never managed millions of pounds.
What I would like to know is whether the Leader of the House declared the loan and the details of it to the permanent secretary. Should he not fully disclose those dealings so that it can be judged whether he breached the rules of this House and the ministerial code? It is a matter of trust, not just in this Government, but in the handling of business in this House and where the responsibility, accountability and sanctions lie for the breach of the ministerial code.
The public are getting the impression that this Government are just marking their own homework, and obviously the Prime Minister makes adjudications on the ministerial code. Coming back to the recommendations from the 2018 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, while the Leader of the House blames the House for not having implemented them more quickly, it is his own failure, because he controls our time. When is he going to bring forward the recommendations from that report?

Danny Kruger: I have enjoyed many of the speeches this afternoon—not the last one by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), which I am not quite sure falls within the definition of Members spending a reasonable amount of time on their constituents’ priorities, but there we are. I start by paying tribute to a speech made in last week’s debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). He spoke about the value and advantage of friendship in this place, but also about the downside of friendships and relationships that are just too cosy.
I was not able to join the earlier debate about covid contracts, but I will quickly mention that we were in a deep national crisis at the time, caused by a model of global supply and distribution that is deeply insecure. To suggest that we could have afforded a leisurely open procurement process is absurd. The whole country, including Opposition Members, was clamouring for action, and businesses stepped forward. It is quite wrong to imply that the whole country or the Government and  all the hundreds of civil servants involved in the awarding of those contracts are corrupt. It is quite wrong to suggest that.
All that said, we do need to clean up the relationship between business and politics. I will say another word about that in a moment, but I turn first to the motion and the question of standards in the wake of the Owen Paterson business. With reference to friendship, I should declare this interest: Owen is my friend. I also knew his wife Rose, and they hosted me at their house some years ago. Amid the deluge of obloquy that Mr Paterson has stood under in recent weeks, I will say that I think he did the state good service when he was in this place, both in Government and on the Back Benches.
But this is where I need to act as a friend should, and also as an MP should who puts the national interest ahead of friendship. Mr Paterson will not accept that he did anything wrong, because he knows himself to have acted with the national interest in mind, and to him that motivation and sense of personal honour is sufficient. The fact is that our motivation is not so clear cut as that. We are all human. We all have motivations that do us credit and motivations that do not, and the fact is that we cannot ourselves disentangle our honourable and dishonourable motivations, especially when money is involved. Money is utterly corrupting.
This issue is as old as Parliament itself. There was an entertaining Edmund Burke quote-off earlier; it was of course Edmund Burke who, after losing his seat because he had not done what his constituents wanted him to do, and while sitting for a pocket borough, introduced reforms to clean up politics and get the influence of the Crown out of this place, and William Pitt who implemented them—so it is Conservatives who have a good record on cleaning up politics. In our time, however, we need to look again at the role money plays in politics, and that is not just about MPs.
I echo my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely). I am uncomfortable that my party takes money from certain businesses, particularly property developers, not because there is direct corruption but because it makes it harder for us to treat those companies as we should—as independent stakeholders which, in many cases, do not have the interest of our communities at heart. I find it uncomfortable that the Labour party takes so much money from trade unions, because it means Labour is not independent of organisations that want substantial changes to policy. That is why we need clear rules for Members.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s proposal, which seems similar to Labour’s proposal—both are based on the Committee on Standards in Public Life report from 2018—first to ensure that MPs devote their time to their constituents and, secondly, to stop political lobbying. The Prime Minister is also right to argue for a fairer system of investigating claims of wrongdoing by Members. It is not right that Mr Paterson had no opportunity to call witnesses for examination and no right of appeal against the decision of the Committee on Standards.
We need some reform to the rules, but we should approach it very carefully, particularly how we define reasonable time spent on other interests. We must take steps to restore trust in this place—the Labour party is right about that—but not through the highly political and partisan effort to twist the knife with this motion. We must be deliberate and careful in how we go about it.

Ronnie Cowan: The title of this debate is “Strengthening Standards in Public Life,” and therefore it is plain that standards exist. The problem is that they are not being respected, which is not a new thing. This has not suddenly fallen upon us. Westminster politics and sleaze have co-existed for my entire life. In the 1960s it was centred on Members arranging call girls for their pals and spying, and now it centres on arranging phone calls for their pals and being economical with the truth.
On Tuesday 1 December 2020, during a session of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, I asked the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life:
“Can principles and codes of conduct remain effective if those in office are determined to interpret them as liberally as possible?”
The response is worth noting:
“if people are determined to bend the rules or to try to play right up to the edge of the rules, it is very difficult to do anything about that. You have to draft the rules very carefully to try to ensure they are in the right places, but the Nolan principles are a matter of personal responsibility for anybody in public life. From that point of view, if you purely rely on a compliance system, I think that is second best to people recognising why these arrangements and principles are actually of value in themselves. The purpose of them is not to set up some set of arbitrary rules. They are there in order to ensure that the citizens of this country get the best from their public service, which they are paying for and which they are engaged with and which they rely on. What we want is the best possible delivery of good public services, fairly and honestly in a way in which people can have confidence.”
That is a comprehensive answer, because principles, standards and conventions mean nothing—I see Government and Opposition Front Benchers playing on their phones—if they are ignored by those who deem themselves to be free of the network of obligation that binds everyone else.
My assertion is supported by Lord Evans’s remarks that a culture of impunity was seeping into British governance. Time and again, as we have heard, the facts show that this UK Government have trampled all over the seven principles of public life. The outcome is that there is potential for all elected Members, senior civil servants and others serving in public life to be tarred with the same brush. The public’s default to any accusation can be that we are all guilty. We have to avoid that stereotype of politicians, because we can be painted as the same, as having our noses in the trough and working for our own aims, rather than following the first Nolan principle to act solely in the public interest.
When elected Members line their own pockets, seek favour for actions taken or put themselves before their constituents, they undermine all the good work that the majority of MPs are doing. I have to disagree with the Member who forecast a plague on us all, as that is not inevitable. This is a problem that this Government should have the courage to resolve. The problem is the mindset that allows corruption and undermines selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. The mindset must change, and while this Government twist and turn to protect their own, public confidence will continue to diminish.
Finally, let me say that, thankfully, the people of Scotland have an alternative. Given the catalogue of corruption that weighs heavy on this place—

Bob Seely: Given the myriad SNP scandals, does the hon. Gentleman have any sense of irony? There is a catalogue of financial and sexual harassment scandals—is this obligatory or just advisory for the SNP?

Ronnie Cowan: The hon. Gentleman should be very careful of what he is alleging there, even if he thinks he can get immunity from being in this place. If people look at the model of government and the model of election that we run in Holyrood, in Edinburgh, for the people of Scotland, they would be ashamed of some of the actions that go on in this place. But we can resolve this—[Interruption.] Oh, the Leader of the House is off his phone now—thanks very much for listening, finally.

Deidre Brock: Unfortunately, in Scotland we cannot stop the influence of organisations such as unincorporated associations, with the shadowy donors that lie behind them, such as the Scottish Unionist Association Trust. That occurs, of course, throughout the UK. Indeed, it occurs in places such as the Isle of Wight, where we have the Isle of Wight Conservative Patrons Club. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about these shadowy bodies and the fact that donors can hide their identity?

Ronnie Cowan: This is, of course, a system we are moving away from; when the people of Scotland take their opportunity to remove all of Scotland’s MPs—

Bob Seely: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As a statement of fact, let me say that the Isle of Wight Patrons Club is completely unaffiliated to the Conservative party and the Isle of Wight Conservative Association.

Nigel Evans: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Ronnie Cowan: For the record, nobody has actually said that the IWPC is.
This situation is leading to the acceleration of the removal of all of Scotland’s MPs from this place. The people of Scotland’s representatives will work in a Parliament that is modern, accessible, open, honest and accountable.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: With a five-minute limit, I call Matt Western.

Matt Western: As we all sit here today, it is worth reminding ourselves who it is that we serve. For me, it is absolutely, 100%, the constituents of Warwick and Leamington, Whitnash and villages. It is to them I owe my position as a Member of this House. I am their advocate, paid as such, and I am proud to be so, but I will never take money from anyone to be their advocate or to represent them. We are all the servants of our constituents. By putting our names forward for election, we have all committed ourselves to the principle of public life. I appreciate that the concept of public life is often so abstract that its meaning can occasionally be lost in the heated discourse of politics. For that reason, the Nolan principles, established in 1995, serve as a fundamental, concrete basis for everything that we do. Selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership were and should be our guiding principles. Put simply,
“we need all in positions of trust to set an example.”
Those are not my words, but the words of every living Cabinet Secretary, in a joint letter published in The Times on Monday.
It is therefore with a heavy heart that I consider the actions of some Members of this House in the past 14 days that run counter to the very foundations of public service, with the most egregious case being Owen Paterson and his blatant prioritisation of private, corporate interests over and above those of his constituents, for his own gain. Owen Paterson’s actions grate against every single one of the Nolan principles. His pay cheque from Randox and Lynn’s, at almost three times his MP’s salary, reeks of selfishness, dishonesty and private interest. It is not just the constituents of North Shropshire who are short-changed, but every Member of this House. While the vast majority of us work tirelessly to represent the interests of our constituents, a small but notable minority continue to damage the reputation of this place.
What makes the incident particularly sorrowful is that by seeking to pause the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards’ recommendation of suspension and undermining her independence, the Government complicitly advanced private interests over and above public interests. If the Leader of the House or the Prime Minister are in any way confused about the scale of outrage levelled against their Government in the past 14 days, I suggest to them that it is for that reason. If there is one thing the electorate wants, it is good, honest, reputable government—the antithesis of what we have seen in the past 14 days—and if the Government do not, they should move over.
If anyone was ever in doubt about the need for rigorous standards in public life, this affair has demonstrated why we need them more than ever. I have deep concerns that this incident is just the tip of the iceberg. Over the past two weeks, a flurry of reports has emerged about numerous Members of this House engaging in a variety of forms of paid consultancy. One Conservative Member is reported to have called for weakened environmental laws while earning £30,000 a year as chairman of a packaging lobby group. Another has called for more military spending without declaring his £425-an-hour job with an aerospace company. Meanwhile, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) is reportedly paid £200 an hour by the betting industry while seeking to warn Ministers not to introduce tough new laws on gambling.

Nigel Evans: Order. Has the hon. Member written to the Members he is now mentioning?

Matt Western: Indeed I have, absolutely—to all of them.

Nigel Evans: I will take your word for that.

Matt Western: They say that a fish rots from the head down; is it any wonder, then, that so many Conservative MPs are happy to rake in thousands from private companies, given that as soon as the Prime Minister resigned as Foreign Secretary in 2018, he immediately retook his position at The Daily Telegraph at the staggering rate of £275,000 a year for one weekly column? That is as much per word as someone would receive on a minimum wage. The right hon. Member for Bromsgrove   (Sajid Javid) earned £320,000 in one year working for J. P. Morgan and C3 AI. Let us reflect on that for a moment now that he is the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care: in that period he earned the equivalent of 13 years’ income for an average nurse.
I could not afford to take another job—I already work 70 to 80 hours a week, like many others, I am sure—and nor would I. Time and again this Government have tried to sweep their corruption under the carpet, but this time they have failed. The public are waking up to the fact that this Government’s interests lie with corporate companies and corrupt donors. That is why I speak in full support of the motion tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, which would ban paid consultancy work
“to provide services as a Parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant”.
It is a step in the right direction—towards cleaning up the mess that has dogged this House’s reputation in the past two weeks.

Mick Whitley: The public’s confidence in Parliament and their elected representatives has been dealt a grievous blow in recent weeks, following a torrent of revelations about the scale of corruption among those on the Government Benches—from the millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money handed out to Minister’s friends for personal protective equipment that did nothing to protect frontline workers, through the scandal of cash for peerages, to the grotesque spectacle of Government Members voting to rip up the rules that govern standards in public life in a pathetic attempt to save their friend, the former Member for North Shropshire.
In his most recent U-turn, the Prime Minister now claims to have had a change of heart, but the amendment he has tabled today is a desperate attempt to water down the robust measures that are needed to restore confidence in this House. It is clear for all to see that the Prime Minister regards this as yet another in a long line of scandals for him to sweep under the rug. In the face of a Government who are unwilling to clean up our politics, it has fallen to the Labour party to bring forward this motion, which will guarantee that elected Members serve the interests of their constituents and not those of giant corporations and lobbyist groups.
I will forever be humbled by the immense trust that the people of Birkenhead placed in me nearly two years ago. I owe it to them to dedicate all my energy to standing up for their rights and interests in this House. Being a Member of Parliament is an extraordinary privilege, not a hobby or an afterthought to be indulged in from the luxury of the British Virgin Islands. I have heard some Members say that they just could not get by without their second or third jobs; that the generous salary afforded to us as MPs is not enough. To those MPs I say this: come and explain to my constituents why it is acceptable for you to plunge them into deepest poverty with the cuts to universal credit and Tory tax hikes, and why you should be allowed to cynically exploit your position to make yourself even richer still.
Today, Conservative Members have a simple choice: they can begin the long journey towards restoring faith and competence in our elected institutions or they can continue to slip further down into the cesspit of corruption that is fast enveloping this Government.

Ian Byrne: I thank all my constituents who have written to me asking me to voice their concerns today.
Being an MP since 2019 has given me an insight into how those two letters after our names can open up doors. Last year, as the MP for Liverpool, West Derby—representing many of my constituents who are part of the 32% in Liverpool suffering from food insecurity, as outlined in the report, “Feeding Liverpool”—I, along with Baroness Shami Chakrabarti submitted a proposal for the right to food to be put into law in a meeting with Henry Dimbleby, the Government adviser leading on the national food strategy. I would not have been afforded that opportunity when I was a taxi driver in Liverpool. Having the letters “MP” after my name has enabled me to make a difference. I have sat in many meetings with many people with the aim of tackling the injustices that I see in my constituency and beyond. It would have been far more difficult to organise if I were still a taxi driver—of that I am 100% certain.
We can say with absolute certainty, therefore, that being an MP gives us opportunities and it opens doors for us, but for me it is about what doors we want opening and how we utilise that opportunity. Do we open them with the aim of aiding our constituents and for the common good, or do we open them with the aim of aiding personal gain and wealth? That is what we are debating here, and, shamefully, for many in this Chamber, it has been the latter.
The public’s opinion on MPs is normally low, but with the events of the past week. it is now at rock bottom. Let us imagine being on universal credit, seeing the pain of what the £20 cut has done to our family, and hearing the same Tory MPs who inflicted this inhumane policy line up to complain about their ability to exist on £82,000 a year—a salary that puts them in the top 5% of earners in this country. For God’s sake we have 15 million people in poverty, 4.5 million kids going hungry, and, horrifically, a national pandemic that, in the past seven days, took the lives of 1,035 people. That—nothing else—should be the priority of every MP in this House.
The second job scandal has uncovered rot at the heart of this place that must be resolved by this House. It is immoral, and it must end with the banning of second jobs. Being an MP should be a vocation, not an opportunity to gorge ourselves on the corporate shilling. We need to show the public that being a public servant is indeed a pledge to serve the very constituents who voted us in and to try to advance their lives—not our own, courtesy of a corporate paymaster. It is time to ban these second jobs, and I will be voting in support of that tonight.

Ruth Jones: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. It is pleasure to follow the previous speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne).
I am grateful to those on the shadow Front Bench and the Leader of the Opposition for calling this debate because it is so important to show that, although sleaze has happened, we are not all involved. What many on the Government Benches described as a “Westminster  village issue” has resonated with many people in Newport West who have been in touch with me in recent days to express their strong feelings on the matter.
Hon. Members who fail to separate the interests of the people who elected us to this House from their private interests for money or other benefits damage the integrity of Parliament. They damage the relationship between all parliamentarians and our constituents and they further damage public trust in politics. That is why I cannot understand why the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip instructed their MPs to troop into the Lobby to tear up an independent and functioning process that investigated the behaviour and standards of Members of this House.
I worked in the national health service for more than 30 years, and I saw hard-working people who gave their all every day and adhered to the highest standards. We had to sign a declaration if we had a second job or even if we received a gift that cost more than 20 quid. Those were the rules and we followed them. Local councillors also have to make declarations that are accessible to their constituents about their occupations and interests, so why would Members of this House be above such rules and why should the former Member for North Shropshire think that the rules do not apply to him? I know that I speak for many colleagues—certainly on the Opposition Benches—who believe that it is vital for MPs to be held to the highest standards of behaviour. A strong, independent Standards Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), is an integral part of this important process.
The strength of feeling in Newport West is palpable. Local people are beyond angry at the high-minded, dismissive approach taken by Ministers in recent days. They believe that standards exist to hold us in this House to account. Over the last two weeks, this Government have brought the House into disrepute by giving the impression that these standards do not apply to parliamentarians. We must not allow there to be a lack of standards, or risk the perception of a lack of standards, here in the nation’s Parliament.
I wonder whether the Minister would address some specific points in the wind-ups. When will the Prime Minister come to the House and finally apologise for the damage that he has done to Parliament’s reputation? Why did the Government think that it was acceptable to interfere in a live standards case that had been endorsed by the Standards Committee? Colleagues across the House—but, most importantly, our constituents—want those questions answered.
We all have a responsibility to do better, and to work together to improve standards in public life and in this House, but the Government and Ministers have a responsibility to lead. They have been found wanting and this House, our constituents and the country deserve better. I reiterate: being a Member of this House is a real honour and privilege. Becoming a Member later in life made me appreciate that people out there in the real world look at us in this Westminster bubble and expect the highest standards possible from us; they deserve nothing less, and they are watching.

Zarah Sultana: In one of my first speeches as an MP, I talked about something that I found surprising when I was elected. It was the gifts that we are sent by big business: a food hamper from Heathrow,  with a letter asking me to back a third runway; a box from Google—not much, although the company’s letter told me about its supposed good work, but not the billions of pounds it has dodged in taxes. And that was not it. I was surprised to walk down a corridor in Parliament where big businesses host private dinners for MPs. Over a glass of fine wine and an expensive meal, they extend their influence. I learnt about the free trips abroad that are paid for by global corporations. As Dennis Skinner once joked, it is always
“Bahamas in the winter...they never go on a fact-finding mission to Greenland in the winter!”.
But in truth, it is no laughing matter.
From gifts, dinners and trips abroad to donations from the super-rich and second jobs from big businesses, this web of influence has one aim: to get this House to work for the wealthy few and not the people who we are elected to serve. Why else do a third of UK billionaires donate to the Conservative party? Why else do wealthy corporations hire MPs with ludicrous salaries for lucrative second jobs? It is no coincidence that big business and the super-rich have been handed tax cuts and dodgy deals worth billions by consecutive Conservative Governments.
MPs are already in the top 5% of earners, but for some Members this is still not enough. We have seen how Members cash in on connections, rather than dedicating themselves to their constituents. Since the start of the pandemic, while our constituents have been pushed into poverty due to the Government’s decisions, MPs have made more than £6 million from lucrative second jobs. In the past 14 years, the Prime Minister himself was paid more than £4 million for second jobs—jobs which, I note, would not be banned by his proposals.
But this racket has been exposed. The Prime Minister’s mate got caught. He was lobbying for companies that were paying him hundreds of thousands of pounds. The Committee found this to be an “egregious” breach of the rules, with no other case having such a clear pattern of behaviour. So what did the Prime Minister do? Well, he tried to rewrite the rules and get his mate off the hook, weakening even further the rules against MPs selling themselves to big business—and it was not integrity or a conscience that made him backtrack, but public outcry.
This scandal has exposed not only that all lucrative second jobs should be banned, but that this is a corrupt Government, led by a dodgy Prime Minister.

Stephen Flynn: There is phrase that summarises the past couple of weeks quite well that was mentioned to me earlier by a colleague when we were having a conversation—these past two weeks have been a cure for optimism, because what we have seen is scandal after scandal and sleaze story after sleaze story. Frankly, I am livid. I am livid that all of us have been collectively dragged through the mud because of the corruption of individuals within this place. It is not just that, but the fact that the Leader of the House, a man who extols the virtues of Parliament, tried to cover it up—him, the Prime Minister, the Chief Whip, all complicit in trying to drag the reputation of each and every one of us through the mud. Shame on them.
I cannot explain how furious I am about this. We should all be furious about this. The notion that we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) that it is a plague on all our houses is not something that we should accept. We should highlight those individuals who have acted with impropriety and feathered their own nests, and ensure that they never sit in a democratically elected Chamber ever again, because they have no interest in trying to represent the people. They do not see this place, or any democratic institution, as important—what they see as important is their bank balance and the opportunity to influence.
This does not start or finish with the stories over the past couple of weeks: it goes much further than that. We heard earlier about the House of Lords, and rightly so—that if you donate £3 million to the Conservative party, you will get yourself a seat in our legislature. How is that possible? It amazes me. When I was growing up I did not have any trust in the Labour party. That is one of the main reasons I focused on becoming a member of the Scottish National party. I believed that Scotland could do things differently because of the trust that was broken by Tony Blair when he went into an illegal war in Iraq. We now have a situation where Labour Members, despite the scandals that are engulfing politics at the moment, will not stand up and say that they will not put Members into the House of Lords. So shame on the Government but shame on the official Opposition too.
This does not need to be in Scotland’s name. We can do things differently. We will do things differently. We will act in the interests of the people of Scotland. I see the Leader of the House is laughing. I challenge him to rise just now and defend his actions. I challenge him to resign for trying to slur the name of every single politician up and down the land. I challenge him on one more thing: to encourage his Prime Minister to show the bottle to go to the polls to let the people of Scotland decide their own future, because he knows what the outcome will be, just as I know what the outcome will be: the people of Scotland will choose to get rid of this corrupt institution.

Richard Burgon: I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate where so many Members have spoken with passion and conviction, although some on the Conservative Benches, I am afraid, have spoken with great delusion.
Being a Member of Parliament is a privilege. I could not be prouder to represent my community here in Parliament. My family have lived and worked in east Leeds for 100 years since coming as immigrants from Ireland looking for work, so it could not be a greater privilege for me. Why would I want a second job?
Quite rightly, my constituents would be appalled if I sought or secured a second job. When I first stood for Parliament in 2015, I promised that I would not take a second job. Some people in this place need to wake up and realise what the reality is. Being a Member of Parliament is a well-paid job—it is £82,000 a year.  Some 95% of people in our country get paid less than MPs. It is a full-time job, too. I do not buy these pleas of poverty from Government Members who are trying to tell people whose universal credit has been cut that they are a poor Member of Parliament who just cannot get by on just £82,000 a year. What a load of rubbish.  When MPs are chasing corporate cash, they are short-changing the public, but they are also short-changing and jeopardising our democracy.
We have heard all the fake Tory arguments about how these second and third jobs give real-world experience. I wrote to the Health Secretary and said that I would mention the fact that before becoming Health Secretary he was getting paid £1,500 an hour by a US investment bank. That is not real-world experience. Is it not funny how these MPs who justify this racket on the basis of real-world experience never choose to get a job in the real world? They are not asking to work in supermarkets, as taxi drivers, in factories, in care homes or, in many cases, in hospitals. The truth is that these extra jobs do not make Members of Parliament more in touch with the real world, but less. It is the wrong kind of experience.
I want to mention these fake financial struggles—these teary-eyed tales of poverty—from MPs who are very well off. One Conservative MP told the Financial Times:
“There is no way I could be an MP without my outside interests. My wife works full time, I’ve got kids and need the money for childcare.”
How on earth do these people think that 95% of our population cope on less than £82,000 a year? The truth is that Conservative Members of Parliament may think that they need more than £82,000 a year, but they do not. They might want more than £82,000 a year, but that is very different.
When we hear the Prime Minister describe in an interview on television that £250,000 for journalism is “chicken feed”, people are completely appalled. It is disrespectful to the people who use food banks in our country; it is disrespectful to the people on zero-hours contracts in our country; and it is disrespectful to the people in our country who are struggling to keep their heads above water.
A Conservative MP talked about universal credit. They said:
“I think there are people that quite like getting the extra £20 but maybe they don’t need it.”
The same Conservative Member of Parliament, when asked about this second jobs racket, said:
“We have to realise that we are dealing with human beings who have families and responsibilities”,
making a compelling moral case for MPs to carry on getting extra money through extra jobs, but not offering a modicum of compassion for those in our communities who are suffering.
We hear of some MPs briefing newspapers that they will stand down if they cannot have second jobs, because £82,000 a year is not enough. I say to those MPs: good riddance, go, our democracy does not need you. Some 95% of the public is a big pool from which we can draw in our democracy. We do not need half-measures. The Prime Minister has not gone far enough. We need a ban on second jobs, which is why I am bringing forward a private Member’s Bill on that very subject. Parliament has to show that we understand that the rot in our political system is deep and needs cutting out. It is time to ban second jobs for MPs and it is time for MPs to start living in the real world and representing the public.

Rachel Hopkins: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am a proud member of Unite the   union, and I wish the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara) was here to hear me declare that interest.
When MPs take up
“outside interests beyond what might be considered reasonable, it risks undermining trust in Parliament and Parliamentarians.”
That is what the Committee on Standards in Public Life report said in 2018. In the three years since that report was published under this Conservative Government, including two years during the Prime Minister’s tenure, no action has been taken on MPs’ paid outside interests, particularly for services and for exerting influence. The Government even went one step further away from strengthening standards in this place by moving to rip up the rulebook to save one of their own.
I want to reflect on what the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests, Lord Geidt, told the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee earlier this year. He said that
“good behaviour is a very difficult thing to legislate for. I join those who suggest that it really needs leaders—of course, the Prime Minister, Parliament and civil servants—to set the necessary example.”
Sadly, it is the behaviour and actions of the Prime Minister and other members of the Government that have risked undermining public trust. Whether it be the circumstances surrounding the refurbishment of the flat at Downing Street, the Government’s covid contract VIP lane or the Tory ex-MP for North Shropshire being a paid lobbyist for a private commercial interest, the Prime Minister and the Government have shown no leadership in upholding and strengthening standards in public life.
While we are here, let us reflect again on the fact that the seven principles of public life
“apply to anyone who works as a public office-holder. This includes all those who are elected or appointed to public office, nationally and locally”.
The principles include selflessness:
“Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.”
They also include leadership:
“Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour… They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.”
These standards exist to hold us all to account irrespective of party, and the Committee on Standards in Public Life recognises that the issue is undue influence over an MP’s decision making. Conflicts of interest arise when MPs do not separate the interests of the public from their private interests for money or other benefits, and that damages the integrity of Parliament. It is a privilege to be in this House as the Member for Luton South,  but for all of us our responsibility is to represent our constituents, not undue outside private commercial interests. That is what the public expect.
The Opposition motion that we are debating is binding, and it would lead to immediate action to ban MPs from any paid work to provide services as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant. This will enable us to tackle the unscrupulous act of an MP advising a client on parliamentary matters while at the same time being free to speak, lobby and vote on those same matters to feather their own nests.
I look back at the original reasoning of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1995. Its first report identified this conflict of interest, stating:
“If a Member is engaged to advise a client on Parliamentary matters affecting the client, and is at the same time free to speak, lobby and vote on those same matters in the House, it is not merely possible but highly likely that the Member will use Parliamentary opportunities in a way consistent with that advice.”
Public office should not be used for personal gain. We have a duty to uphold the principles of public life, and I hope that Members across the House will support the Labour motion.

Fleur Anderson: As many Members have said, it gives me no pleasure to be taking part in this debate. I would much rather be talking about jobs for the young people of Roehampton. On Friday, I will be holding a jobs fair in Roehampton, which I have previously invited Members of the House to attend— but not to get their own second jobs, I hasten to add. Instead, we have to be here stating the obvious: there should be high standards in public life.
So what is this all about? Is it that a U-turn a day keeps the electorate away for the Prime Minister? It is not even a U-turn. This amendment is a watered-down version of our own Labour amendment. It does not go far enough, it does not take the steps necessary and it will not content the people of Britain, who are watching this now. I urge Members to vote for the Labour motion in a show of cross-party support for upholding our standards.
We know that the public are watching, and asking, “Why didn’t the Government do this a long time ago?” Why have Conservative MPs got away with being able to take lucrative contracts from companies that, of course, have expectations of getting something back? Labour’s motion is clear. It
“endorses the 2018 recommendation from the Committee on Standards in Public life that Members should be banned from any paid work to provide services as a Parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant; instructs the Committee on Standards to draw up proposals to implement this and to report by 31 January 2022—”
—a clear date. It orders action on that by two weeks later, or for an explanation to be given as to why not.
On the other hand, the Government amendment is unclear. It deliberately fudges the issues and could lead to no changes whatsoever on second jobs, if that is chosen to be the end of the process. If any Members present want to tell their constituents that we are tackling the issue of second jobs, they should vote for the motion and not for this weak, wavering and watered down amendment.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister wrote to the Speaker to try to pretend that he wanted to accept our binding motion on dodgy second jobs for MPs, and that is what the press have been told. That was then watered down and kicked into the long grass. This is a Prime Minister who says one thing, only to do another. We do not trust a word he says because he has proved that he says one thing and does another. Let’s get real; it has taken too long to get here to duck out now. It is clear what people want. Now is the time for Conservative Members to support the motion, rather than having to make tortuous negotiations with their Whips, only to be told there will  be another U-turn tomorrow. If Conservative MPs really want to clean up our politics, they should vote for the Labour amendment.
Let me go through a little of what the Government amendment says, and how poor it is. Perhaps I will give it a little more time than it had in its actual writing. The amendment
“believes the rules which apply to MPs must be up to date, effective and appropriately rigorous;”.
We would all agree with that, but it does not say anything extra. It
“recalls the 2018 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life into this matter;”.
Well, we can all recall it, but again no action. It
“believes that recommendations 1 and 10 in that report form the basis of a viable approach which could command the confidence of parliamentarians and the public;”.
Yes, we all believe in those recommendations. We believe in them—fantastic—but again, no action. It
“believes that these recommendations should be taken forward; and supports cross-party work, including that being done by the House’s Committee on Standards, to bring forward recommendations to update the Code of Conduct for MPs by 31 January 2022.”
Of course a date had to be put in there, otherwise it would be entirely criticised, but I suggest that supporting “cross-party work” could start right now, by supporting the Labour party motion.
It has taken too long just to duck out now. The Leader of the House opened this debate by sort of arguing that MPs should have interests outside the Westminster bubble—no disagreement—and implying that second jobs are needed to provide that. I am suspicious that at the end of the process outlined in the amendment, we will get to somewhere, with a lot of lobbying by other MPs who have second jobs, that actually will not stop second jobs.
On the day after I was elected nearly two years ago, I went to the community centre where I had been employed and I resigned immediately. However, I brought all that experience with me to the House. I do not need to go back to the community centre and carry on working there to have that experience. I have brought it with me. I do not know of many jobs where we say to our new boss, “Sorry, I have to keep working at my old job to have the experience to do my new job.” That is not how it works.
We have been here for a while. Labour secured an Opposition-day motion in 2015 that called for an end to MPs holding paid directorships or consultancies, and 250 Conservatives—many of whom are still Members—voted against it, along with 38 Members of the Liberal Democrat party. Why did they not vote for this recommendation back then? It would have saved the Committee on Standards in Public Life from having to do all the reports, and it would have saved a lot of dodgy dealings along the way. The recommendations were made in 2018. Why did the Government not support them then? Instead, it has taken a Conservative MP being found to have broken the rules many times. It has taken a botched attempt to rig the system of standards, and the threat of this Opposition day debate to make the Prime Minister do what the British public wanted him to do a long time ago, and even then, it is not a very good amendment.
The Prime Minister knows that he cannot ask his MPs to vote against what the motion suggests. He knows about the unprecedented letter from all five living former Cabinet Secretaries. He knows that there are calls for an investigation into links between the second jobs of several MPs and Government contracts. He has been backed into this.
But why has it taken so long? Is it because Conservative MPs feel that it is only right—it is only fair enough—to earn a bit on the side? Do they feel that their worth is not in doing public service but in comparing how much they earn against their wealthy pals? Is there a Conservative culture of entitlement and disconnect with most working people in this country, which means that Conservative MPs feel that their salary is not enough, that they need more?
Many Conservative MPs have tried to blur this debate by talking about second jobs as doctors, nurses or reservists, or even about the private-public divide, but that misses the point. The distinction is clearly about being a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant. It is about using influence for private gain.
There have been excellent contributions to this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) took us to the heart of the debate, saying that constituents feel that it is contemptuous for Members who are paid more than four times the average salary to be paid more. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) stood up for decency, giving us a sorry list of times that the Government have failed to uphold standards, saying that this needs to stop.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said that MPs should not be available to the highest bidder and that people who want to earn more should not seek office. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) reminded us—though his Opposition colleagues do not need reminding—that MPs are here to serve constituents, as he does, and revealed that Conservatives have earned an extra £8 million on top of their salaries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) said that this is a matter of standards and trust, and that it is not only about second jobs but about second sources of income. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) said that while the majority of MPs work very hard, a small minority damage our reputation by earning large amounts of money.
My hon. Friends the Members for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), for Newport West (Ruth Jones) and for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) all shared the anger felt by their constituents that at such a difficult time for our country, MPs are voting for cuts to universal credit at the same time as topping up already high salaries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) showed that this debate is exposing cash for connections—it is drawing aside the curtain and revealing what is happening. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East quoted a Conservative MP saying that they could not cope on £80,000, which makes me worry about where we would end up with this amendment. Will the Government really cut second jobs? My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) said that the Government need to  show leadership in standards. That should not need to be said, but it will be cheered on by people across the country.
Why is it wrong to be paid to be a strategist, lobbyist or consultant? First, our responsibility is to our constituents, not to whoever pays us. I feel, every minute of every day, that I have 100,300 bosses—that is how many people live in Putney. They are my bosses, not whoever might be paying me. That would mean that I had a conflict of interest—of course it would—and receiving no payment would immediately cut that conflict of interest. The bottom line is: how could any Member of this House say that their constituents are their first priority and then devote valuable hours to advising private companies?
That brings me to my second point—time, which has been mentioned by many Members. Since I was elected less than two years ago, I have received more than 1,500 emails a month, I have sent nearly 40,000 emails back to my constituents, and I have spoken in Parliament more than 300 times and tabled more than 500 questions, alongside very regular meetings with constituents in Putney that inform everything I say in this place. How would I have time to work an extra hour a year—let alone 70 hours or more—on top of that for a private company? No matter how good the money is, I could not fit it in and properly serve my constituents.
The third reason is the clear links to Government contracts. We talked lengthily about Randox in an earlier debate today, but why do businesses and lobbying companies pay MPs? It is not for the fun. It is not just for the advice. It is clearly for the influence.
I listened carefully to the Leader of the House argue that a ban on second jobs will see a lot of expertise and skills lost from this House, but I again say that I do not think we need to be paid for a second job to bring in all our skills and expertise to be able to talk to a wide range of interests and people in the constituency. There does not have to be a link between payments and private interests, and the public interest we serve. What are our motivations as public servants? That is at the heart of this debate.
To close, whether Conservative Members like it or not, the party is over. It is a matter of when, not if. The public have made their feelings loud and clear to the House and in the House during this debate. The party stops now. We have an opportunity in a few moments to end it tonight once and for all, or to dither and delay and pass the watered-down Government amendment which will potentially not end it at all. Who knows what will come up at the end of January with the Government amendment? Instead, we should go back to our constituents with our heads held high and say, “No more dither, no more delay. We have heard you loud and clear. No more MPs for hire. Less cash, more case work.” Vote for the Opposition’s motion today.

Michael Ellis: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate for their thoughtful contributions over the past three-and-a-half hours. In closing, I will respond to a few of the issues raised by hon. Members, but first I want to say this. The impassioned nature of the proceedings this afternoon, and the range of opinions, experiences and insights put forward by Members on both sides of the House, proves how important it is that we now move  forward as one from a position of consensus. I look forward to the constructive support, therefore, of the Opposition Front Bench as we make progress.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said in opening the debate, the Government have reflected carefully on the concerns that have been raised in recent weeks about the outside interests of Members of Parliament and fully recognise the need for the rules that bind all our behaviour in the code of conduct to be up to date, effective and rigorous. Indeed, we on the Conservative Benches are pleased that the Labour party brought forward a motion on this important matter. The Government not only support the intent of the motion, but take a tougher stance than the Opposition in advocating, as we do, recommendation 1 of the 2018 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
The Government have put on record that they would support a change to the code of conduct to endorse recommendation 10 from the same report. Those recommendations, if they were to be adopted, would serve to allay the concerns that have been aired eloquently in this place and outside it, establish that the role of the MP continues to command the confidence of the general public, and ensure that the rules on outside activity reflect the fundamental principle enunciated eloquently by Edmund Burke in 1774 and many times since that, first and foremost, Members of Parliament have a duty to their constituents.
That duty is paramount. It is why we, as Members of Parliament, are here today: because we were elected on a vow to serve those whom we represent. If duty to our constituents is as important to the leader of the Labour party and the sponsor of today’s Opposition motion as it is to the Government, he might ponder whether the people of Holborn and St Pancras have been sufficiently served by the right hon. and learned Member, or whether the British people wish their MPs to be mouthpieces of trades union interests. An updated code of conduct would mean—

Alex Sobel: rose—

Michael Ellis: No, I don’t think so. An updated code of conduct would mean that Members of Parliament who neglected their constituents and put their outside interests first would be investigated and subject to the proper sanctions, if found to be in breach of those rules. That, in turn, should help to ensure that the work of this House continues to command the confidence of the public.
The Government recognise that the Standards Committee has a vital role to play and would welcome advice from the Committee on how these proposals can best be implemented. The Government also await the Standards Committee’s report on the code of conduct with interest. Any changes to the system will need to be taken forward on the basis of cross-party consensus of the whole House, for obvious reasons. Naturally, the Government will advocate for the development of such a process. We look forward to the constructive support of the Opposition Front Benchers in the coming weeks and months.
To turn to the comments from hon. Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) made eloquent and powerful points and made  it clear how difficult this situation is, in an impassioned contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) made points about how important it is to get the balance right in this complicated argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) made a constructive contribution, suggesting some additional measures. He is well placed to make those suggestions and they will be listened to carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) spoke about the difference that was being advocated in some quarters between the public and private sectors, and he made extremely powerful points about getting more people into politics in future when that is hard enough at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) said that we have very high standards in this country and that we are one of the least corrupt countries on the planet. That is without question. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) also made the point that the trade unions have a part to play in this discussion.
So often, these issues are presented as intractable lines in the sand between two incompatible and firmly entrenched positions, but they are not entrenched positions. They are about finding a way ahead that reflects our duties to the people and the nation and a process that we can all get behind, given the strength of feeling. I am grateful again for the contributions that we have heard in the House today and for the work that will be brought forward as a result.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 282.
Question accordingly negatived.

Nigel Evans: I must advise Members that if they shout a certain way, they should vote a certain way.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.

The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 0.
Question accordingly agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2)).
Resolved,
That this House acknowledges recent concern over the outside interests of Members of Parliament; believes the rules which apply to MPs must be up to date, effective and appropriately rigorous; recalls the 2018 report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life into this matter; believes that recommendations 1 and 10 in that report form the basis of a viable approach which could command the confidence of parliamentarians and the public; believes that these recommendations should be taken forward; and supports cross-party work, including that being done by the House’s Committee on Standards, to bring forward recommendations to update the Code of Conduct for MPs by  31 January 2022.

Liz Kendall: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the course of the previous debate, the Government sneaked out guidance on the cap on social care costs that means that people on low and modest incomes, especially in the midlands and the north, will have to pay more for their care. Should elderly people and their families not have a clear explanation of what they will have to pay for their care, with proper scrutiny and accountability from hon. Members? Can you advise us as to whether Ministers will be coming to this House to set out the details of their proposals that will see the poorest pensioners in this country paying more?

Nigel Evans: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving me advance notice of it. I have been given no notification that any statements will be made today. Clearly, if a statement will be made tomorrow, the House will be informed in the usual way.

Business Without Debate

Sitting on 23 November

Ordered,
That on Tuesday 23 November the House shall meet at half past twelve o’clock and the sitting in Westminster Hall will begin at half past two o’clock and continue for three hours.—(Steve Double.)

Delegated Legislation (Airport and Ground Operations Support Scheme Winter 2021/22 Renewal)

Ordered,
That the Motion in the name of Secretary Grant Shapps relating to Airport and Ground Operations Support Scheme Winter 2021/22 Renewal shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—(Steve Double.)

Walter Smith OBE: Contribution to Scottish Football

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Steve Double.)

Brendan O'Hara: I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving the House the opportunity to put on the record its appreciation of the contribution made by the late Walter Smith to Scottish football. I will be as generous as I possibly can in allowing interventions because I know that an awful lot of people want to contribute. I thank the Minister for his understanding of the situation.
It is, of course, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I hope you will forgive me if I express my regret that the Chairman of Ways and Means could not be with us this evening. I know from our frequent sparring over matters pertaining to life in Glasgow and Scottish football that there is no bigger Rangers supporter and no greater Walter Smith fan in this House than the Chairman of Ways and Means—

Jim Shannon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? [Laughter.]

Brendan O'Hara: I will in a moment; I will make some progress first.
I am sure that the Chairman of Ways and Means, perhaps more than most, would understand me when I say that, unlike her good self and perhaps one or two others present, Walter Smith’s career has not been a source of great personal joy and happiness for me—far from it. Indeed, save for his brief period as manager of Scotland, Walter’s career was the cause of great personal angst and unhappiness for me, as his team all too regularly wiped the floor with mine, so I will leave it to others—I can see that on the Benches behind me others are indeed primed—to tell of the joy that Mr Smith’s remarkable career brought to them.

Jim Shannon: rose—

Brendan O'Hara: Right on cue—I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I spoke to him beforehand and said that this was a wonderful occasion to recognise the contribution made by Walter Smith OBE. As an avid Rangers fan—I am probably as good a Rangers fan as anybody in this House—I have long admired the role played by Walter Smith in our glory days, and I believe those days are on their way back round. I also admired the role that he played in the Better Together campaign against Scottish independence; he had a clear and wonderful view that I respected and that I know the hon. Gentleman respected too. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Walter Smith’s legacy of passion on the pitch and respect off the pitch was seen at his funeral, where there were not only many Rangers supporters but many Celtic, Hearts and Hibernian supporters? That tells me that Walter Smith OBE is respected throughout the whole UK—not just by Rangers fans but by everyone—for his contribution.

Brendan O'Hara: I do agree and thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is absolutely right and I will address that shortly.
Regardless of our football allegiance, we can all agree, whether through tears of joy or tears of sorrow, that Walter Smith enjoyed a remarkable managerial career that is up there with the very best Scotland has ever produced. In a trophy-laden career he led Rangers to an astonishing 21 major titles, over two terms at Ibrox. He won the Scottish premier league 10 times, plus three more times as assistant manager to Graeme Souness in the ’80s. He picked up five Scottish cups and six Scottish league cups, and his team reached the final of the UEFA cup in 2008.
He managed in the English premiership, taking charge at Everton for three or four seasons and performing wonders at Goodison Park in what was a hugely difficult period for the club; I think the consensus opinion would be that he performed a minor miracle by keeping them in the top flight of English football for the time  he was there. Of course, he then joined his great friend Sir Alex Ferguson at Manchester United and enjoyed FA cup success in 2004.
He also briefly managed the Scottish national team and did a pretty good job, improving our world ranking by 70 places during his tenure, which included that famous victory over France at Hampden. Unfortunately, his stay at Scotland was all too brief and when Rangers came calling, there was no way he would turn down a chance to return to the club that he loved.

Chris Stephens: Walter Smith’s life and career is also celebrated in early-day motion 584, which I have signed along with my hon. Friend and 40 other colleagues. Will my hon. Friend join me in encouraging other Members to sign that early-day motion? Would not the best tribute to Walter Smith’s life be to see Scotland back where they belong, in the World cup in Qatar in 2022? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

Brendan O'Hara: I am delighted to say that we are—touch wood—heading in that direction.
Walter Smith had a remarkable managerial career, which will live long in the memory, but, perhaps more importantly, he will be remembered as being a thoroughly decent and honourable man—a man who, despite proudly wearing his Rangers colours, managed to cut across the maelstrom of football rivalry in Glasgow and was a hugely respected figure in the green half of the city, too. That was in no small way down to the close personal friendship that developed between Walter and Celtic hero Tommy Burns. The image of a grief-stricken Walter Smith carrying Tommy’s coffin out of St. Mary’s church in 2008 was deeply moving and is an extremely powerful symbol of there being matters much, much more important than football rivalry. It seems appropriate at this juncture to ask the House to pay its respects to Bertie Auld,  one of Celtic’s Lisbon Lions who died on Sunday at the age of 83.

Christine Jardine: I thank the hon. Member for giving way and congratulate him on securing this Adjournment debate. Does he agree that, perhaps, the thing that Walter Smith and Bertie Auld had in common was that they did manage to bring together both sides of the city, which can be very divided, in a way that showed us a positive way ahead and that they have actually done a great deal to change attitudes?

Brendan O'Hara: I do think that. There is a phrase that we use in this place an awful lot, which is that there is an awful lot more that unites us than divides us. I think people always look for the divisions rather than the things that unite us.
Walter Smith was born into a football-daft household on 24 February 1948. He grew up in Carmyle in the east end of Glasgow and, from a young age, every other week, his dad took him to see Rangers—Cambuslang Rangers who played just over the other side of the water from where he grew up. Walter never shared his dad’s passion for junior football, and soon it was he and his grandfather who were regular attenders at Ibrox to see his heroes Don Kitchenbrand and Johnny Hubbard turn out for the city’s other Rangers.
The young Smith was not a bad player himself and, after a short spell in junior football with Ashfield, he was signed by Dundee United in the summer of 1966, making 108 appearances in nine years on Tayside.

Stephen Flynn: I thank my colleague for giving way. My constituents will be wondering why I have jumped up at the mention of Dundee United, and the truth is now out. I am sure that he will go on to mention this, but Walter Smith wrote himself into Dundee United folklore on 14 May 1983 when the ball sailed over Kelly’s head and Dundee United won the League. Walter was, of course, Jim McLean’s assistant at that moment in time, and I am sure that my colleague would like to pay tribute to that wonderful victory.

Brendan O'Hara: Yes, I will and then I will come on to how Walter began his managerial career with a remarkable conversation with Jim McLean.
Walter had what one would call a respectable career as a footballer, but I think it would be fair to say that his time at Dundee United provided little clue as to what lay ahead. The arrival of Jim McLean as manager of Dundee United in 1971 was to have a profound effect on his career—initially for the worse—as the new manager decided that he was surplus to requirements and sold him to Dumbarton. Possibly with an eye to the future, Jim McLean brought Walter back to Tannadice two years later, but a bad injury severely limited his United appearances. Walter spent more time working and playing with the reserve team than with the first team. It was  his work with the reserve team that caught the attention of Jim McLean and indeed the SFA, which, in 1978, asked Walter to assist in the running of the Scotland under-18 team, which went on to win the European Youth Championship in 1982.
Walter also caught the eye of another young Scottish manager, Alex Ferguson, who on being appointed boss at Aberdeen, phoned Jim McLean to see whether he could approach Walter to be his assistant at Pittodrie. His request was somewhat robustly refused—anyone who knows Jim McLean will understand that. Perhaps it was that realisation that Walter was gaining a reputation that finally persuaded Jim McLean to have that life-changing conversation in 1980—a conversation that Walter often recalled. He described Wee Jim pulling him aside, saying, as only Wee Jim could, “Walter, at some stage in your career, you’ve got to face up to the fact of how good you are, and let’s face it, Walter, you are shite, but I think you’ve got a real talent as a coach, so would you be my coach?” As Walter said himself,
“It was hardly a marriage proposal”,
but it was one that he accepted anyway. It was an offer that took a journeyman footballer on an expedition that would lead to the very top of the managerial profession.

Kirsten Oswald: My hon. Friend has probably already said it for me, but generations of Dundee United fans like myself see the double act of Jim McLean and Walter Smith, and what they were able to achieve working together, and applaud those two great men, who we have lost in such short succession.

Brendan O'Hara: My hon. Friend is right. It is no coincidence that Walter Smith’s elevation to assistant manager at Tannadice coincided with the most successful period in the history of Dundee United,

Kirsten Oswald: So far.

Brendan O'Hara: Young players who Walter Smith coached through the ranks, including Richard Gough, Maurice Malpas, Ralph Milne, Paul Sturrock and so many more, helped to secure Dundee United back-to-back Scottish league cups, and in 1983 the Scottish premier league title for the first and only time—thus far—in the club’s history. Of course, the following season Dundee United made it all the way to the semi-final of the European cup. Had it not been for a £50,000 bribe given to a French referee by Italian giants Roma, they may well have progressed further.

Douglas Ross: rose—

Brendan O'Hara: Speaking of referees.

Douglas Ross: In this week of all weeks, I should refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Following the hon. Gentleman’s point, it does sound as if some referees are worse than others in terms of monetary affairs.
Let me return to the hon. Gentleman’s excellent speech. I think that both sides of the House would echo what he said about both Bertie Auld and Walter Smith. Sometimes we use the word “legend” too much, but both were legends of the game. However, what probably made them different from just any other player was their decency, both on and off the pitch. That is something that we can remember, as their families mourn them at this time.

Brendan O'Hara: Absolutely. I genuinely thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I hope that it brings comfort to both the Auld family and the Smith family that this House is recognising them in this way.
By the mid-1980s, Walter was in great demand. When Alex Ferguson took charge of the Scottish national team, he asked Walter to be his assistant. This time, Jim had no objection. But it was not just the national team who had designs on the Dundee United assistant manager. In the early 1980s, Rangers was going through a particularly barren spell and the new owners were determined to change that. In April 1986, Scottish football was rocked when Graeme Souness was appointed player-manager at Ibrox. Joining him as his assistant, somewhat under the radar, and with none of the fanfare and hullabaloo, was Walter.
History will judge—indeed, history has probably already judged—that the more important and significant signing of that duo was Walter Smith, because although it was Souness who provided the glitz and the glamour, it was Smith who provided the coaching experience, the managerial know-how and the cool head, which was never more exemplified than on the opening day of the 1986-87 season, when the new player-manager was sent off after a melee at Easter Road. But it was a partnership that worked, and the Souness-Smith era, ably assisted by an influx of top English internationals, got off to the perfect start when Rangers won the league cup in 1986.
Apart from a league and cup double in their centenary season, Celtic was left trailing in the wake of this new force, and Rangers, under the guidance of Souness and Smith, appeared set to dominate for the foreseeable future. But just as his arrival at Ibrox caused a sensation, so too did Graeme Souness’s departure, when, with just four games left of the 1990-91 season, he quit Rangers to become manager of Liverpool. Graeme Souness tried to persuade Walter to join him, but the offer to become Rangers manager was just too attractive for the lifelong Rangers fan to turn down. I remember him saying that his only regret was that his beloved grandfather did not live long enough to see it happen.
With the title race going down to the wire in the final game of the season, Aberdeen went to Ibrox needing just a draw to win. Walter was under enormous pressure to win that game. Rangers did win it, and that victory launched them into a period of prolonged dominance in Scottish football.

Stewart McDonald: As the token Rangers fan of the SNP group—albeit I have not been at a Rangers game since Basile Boli played for them—I can say that Walter Smith is somebody who, as other Members have said, is loved across teams and loved across Glasgow—and, indeed, Scotland. My hon. Friend is making an exceptional speech and I want to thank him for it, because for me Walter Smith was a childhood hero and it has been great to hear the history of his career. I know that many of my constituents, whether they are at the Parkhead stand with my hon. Friend or not, will send sympathies to Walter’s family.

Brendan O'Hara: I thank my hon. Friend for that.
After that first victory against Aberdeen, six more successive Scottish league titles followed, along with three Scottish cups and three Scottish league cups, and Walter took Rangers to the brink of the final of the Champions league in the 1992-93 season. By any standards, it was a remarkable run of success, but everything must come to an end, and after a disappointing start to the 1997-98 season, Rangers announced that he would be leaving the club. They lost the league title to Celtic on the final day and then lost to Hearts the following week. It was not the end to his Rangers career that anyone wanted or expected, but as we have heard, they had not seen the last of Mr Smith, as remarkably, nine years later, in 2007, Rangers again turned to Walter Smith to help them out of another barren spell.

Wendy Chamberlain: As a Motherwell supporter, I certainly remember that first season of Walter being in charge of Rangers, because in 1991 Motherwell won the Scottish cup. A key component of that victory was Davie Cooper. When Davie Cooper  tragically died of a brain haemorrhage in 1995 at the  age of 39, Walter Smith said at his funeral that God gave Davie Cooper a talent and that he would not be disappointed with how it was used. Does the hon. Member agree that Walter Smith’s talent as a manager was pretty much unsurpassed in Scottish football? I am very glad that we are paying tribute to him in this place today.

Brendan O'Hara: I thank the hon. Lady for that. The mention of Davie Cooper brings back incredibly sad memories because I was there when Davie died. I was working with Davie that day. I attended the funeral as well. He was an unbelievable talent and an incredibly nice man—a joy to work with.
Walter returned to the club in 2007, and again he worked his magic. In his four years at the club, he won another eight trophies, including three consecutive Scottish league titles, and he took Rangers to their first European final in 36 years, when they played Zenit St Petersburg in the 2008 final. He finally brought down the curtain on a glittering career on the last day of the 2010-11 season with another success.
As well as Walter being a constituent of mine, and for many years a near neighbour in Helensburgh, I also had the privilege of working with him in 2011 when I wrote, produced and directed a two-hour long documentary for STV, along with my friend and lifelong Rangers fan Andy Halley, on Walter’s remarkable football career. Throughout the making of that documentary, Walter was unfailing courteous, helpful and immensely co-operative. He was also remarkably trusting, as he afforded us unprecedented access to his life as Rangers manager. I would like to think he appreciated the finished product; if he did not, then he was far too polite to say. What was remarkable about the making of that documentary was that when I contacted people to ask them to contribute, no one—not one person—said no or made an excuse not to participate in it. Alex Ferguson, Graeme Souness, Jim McLean, Billy McNeill, John Greig, Ally McCoist, Richard Gough, Brian Laudrup and many, many others went out of their way to pay tribute to Walter Smith on the occasion of his retirement. That speaks volumes for the esteem in which he was held by fellow professionals.
His achievements will never be forgotten by ordinary Rangers supporters, because Walter Smith is an all-too-rare example of a manager who led a club he supported; a manager who celebrated every victory like a fan and felt the pain of every defeat like a fan. It was that affinity he felt for the club, every bit as much as the success that  he brought to Rangers, that means Walter Smith will be revered for generations to come.
Walter Smith died on 26 October 2021 at the age  of 73. Typically, only a very select few knew that he was unwell, and so, like the vast majority, I too was shocked and deeply saddened to hear the news. Walter is survived by his wife Ethel, his sons Neil and Steven, and his grandchildren, who I know he absolutely adored. I am sure that the entire House will join me in extending our deepest sympathies and condolences to the family and join me in thanking Walter Smith OBE for his outstanding contribution to Scottish football.

Nigel Huddleston: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan  O'Hara) for securing this debate today about a true Scottish footballing great, and for the moving contributions that he and many others have made today. I know that many others would have liked to contribute, but are not able to be in the Chamber today. I also send my condolences to Walter Smith’s wife, Ethel, and the rest of his family and close friends and pay tribute to an absolutely incredible ambassador for football in this country. The fact that a diehard Celtic fan has tabled this debate to celebrate a Rangers legend is testament to Walter Smith’s legacy, his reach across football and so much more.

Julian Knight: That legacy is not just about Rangers and Celtic, but Everton. What a fantastic manager Walter was at Everton. On this side of the House, we wish to say to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) that Walter cut across all divides. He was just a very good man and a very good manager. I think that is a lesson to us all in this place and beyond. We should celebrate his life and perhaps in future we should just understand, given how he cut across all divides, that we are all one in that respect. He was a great football manager. From my friends at Everton football club, I know he was an absolutely delightful man in many respects.

Nigel Huddleston: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments; I could not agree more. While Walter is best known for his managerial career, as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute mentioned, he did play more than 100 times for Dundee United. Aside from a brief spell in Dallas, he played his entire career in the Scottish league. His greatest impact though, as we have heard, is when he made that all-important transition to management. Over more than two decades, he took charge of teams at the very top of the elite game in this country. As  we have heard, there was his incredible performance at Glasgow Rangers, where he won 10 titles, multiple Scottish cups and Scottish league cups, including the domestic treble in 1993. He also completed a record-equalling ninth league title in a row near the end of his first spell at the club—a record that still stands to this day. To have established such dominance at the top of the Scottish game, given the ever-changing nature of our domestic leagues, is a true testament to his managerial prowess.
Smith is also remembered for his activities further south; as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) just mentioned, he was at Everton for four notable years. Some may recall he then briefly spent time in the dugout with another Scottish great, Sir Alex Ferguson, at Manchester United. Everton may have regretted that move across the M62 though, after an example of Smith’s eye for talent, which I have  heard a lot about, benefited his new side. Smith had spotted a certain Wayne Rooney when he was just 14 years old and scoring regularly for the under-19s. Some 559 appearances and 253 goals a few years later, it is clear that Smith was on to something. That is just one example of his scouting and coaching prowess. Former Everton and Rangers captain David Weir once claimed that Smith had a “sixth sense” when it came to the needs of his players.
During Smith’s spell at Man U, he was credited with playing a key role in the development of no less than one Cristiano Ronaldo, helping him emerge arguably into one of the best players who has ever played the  game. Smith’s success in club football was rewarded ultimately with the men’s Scottish national team job in 2004.
Smith did not just produce one-off performances. Scotland rose a remarkable 70 places in the FIFA world rankings during his time at Hampden—a truly incredible feat. It is not just what he achieved with Scotland, which of course was remarkable, but how he did it. That has been a very clear theme in what we have been hearing this evening. In appointing Tommy Burns, a rival from his time as Celtic manager, as his assistant, he helped to unite a nation of football fans.
Smith would, I am sure, have been delighted with the progress of the national team on Friday, after they confirmed a place in the World cup qualifying play-offs with the 2-0 victory in Moldova. I am sure that hon. Members, particularly on a certain side of the House, will join me in wishing Steve Clarke and his exciting young squad the very best of luck for the play-off campaign.
Off the pitch, it was fair to say Smith did not suffer fools gladly. It has been interesting to do some background reading on Walter, and it is probably true to say that he would occasionally have used some unparliamentary language that I am not allowed to repeat this evening, tempted though I am.
As we have heard again and again, Smith was not just a great football manager, but a great man. That was illustrated by the awarding of an OBE for services to  association football in 1997. He clearly made a huge impact on all those he worked with, and will be remembered fondly by his colleagues and supporters at club and national level. He is yet another example of the positive influence that our sportspeople and sport can have on the many lives that sport can touch.
I would like to sign off this debate with another thanks to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute for enabling the House to celebrate an incredible life. It is one that made such an important contribution to the national game in this country, and to many millions of Rangers fans and beyond. Rangers chairman, Douglas Park, summed him up perfectly when he said that
“he was much more than just a football manager. Walter was a friend to many, a leader, an ambassador and most of all a legend.”
I could not agree more.
Perhaps most importantly, a message to Ethel and Walter’s family is what a remarkable legacy it is that Walter has left because, even this evening, he has managed to unite the House of Commons. Thank you, Walter.

Nigel Evans: Brendan, in my experience, no one has been paid more touching tributes in an Adjournment debate that I have heard. Please could you send our deepest condolences to Walter Smith’s family from all of us at the House of Commons.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.